Dismissed

Ms Samagra Agri Business Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Cholamandalam Investament and Finance Company Limited

DRT29 May 2026SA/213/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a Securitisation Application filed to quash SARFAESI recovery measures initiated by a secured creditor. The tribunal affirmed the Respondent's adherence to statutory notice procedures and lawful classification of the account as NPA, allowing physical possession of the mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application dismissed; no order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed.

Ms Samagra Agri Business Services Pvt. Ltd. versus… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL -^{II AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE^{29TH DAY OF MAY,2026}

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE, B.COM, L.LB. (HONS.),M'A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization^{ApplicationNo' 213 OF 2025}

¶5

M/s. Samagra^{Agri BusinessServicesPvt' Ltd',} Rep by its Prop.^{Abbu Mounik Chittajallu} S/o. Samba^{SivaRao,Gender:Male,} Aged About: 39^{Years, Occ: Business,} Rio. Flat No.A-4,^{SamratResidential Complex,} 4th Floor, Block^{-A, SecretariatRoad,} Saifabad,^{Khairatabad,Hyderabad- 500 004}

¶6

.......APPlicant

¶7

v"t y:--,", - \Fr. HA,v,F\r.,vvAx ,(, ,, -,F^{n ,,r.} '| I n. I rlltll. l. Itl'A' Cholamandalam^{Investmentand FinanceCompany} Limited, Rep. bY^{its Authorized officer,} Branch Office^{Situated At: No'3-8-418/t'} Second^{Floor, Plot No'59,60, 61 & 62'} Mansoorabad,^{LB Nagar, Hyderabad- 500 068} ...ResPondent

¶8

: Mr. G.^Hussain Counsel^{for the APPlicant} : M/s.^{Vishnu Grover & Associates} Counsel^{for Res7ondent}

¶9

-:ORDER:-

¶10

1.^{The present Securitization Applicationis filed by the Applicants} uls.77^{of the Securitisationand Reconstructionof FinancialAssets} and^{Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act' 2002 ("Act" hereinafterfor} short)^{to set aside all the measure initiatedby the Respondent} Company^{under section 13(a) of the Act' including advocate} commissioner^{notice dated 02'05'2025 in pursuanceof the warrantin} Crl.M.P.No.22^{B of 2Q25on the file of the Hon'bleI Addl' Chief ludicial} Magistrate.Court^{at Nampally in rglPect of the SA ScheduleProperty'} ow*'

¶11

Page 2 of 5

¶12

sA No.21312025

¶13

The averments of the application, briefly, are that the Respondent Company sanctioned a mortgage loan of Rs.46,00,000 for the development of its agribusiness activities with security interest over sA schedule^property. Due to severe financial rosses resulting from the covid-1g pandemic and business downturn Appricant was unable to regurarry service the roan instaIments. In spite of repeated requests for regularization by accepting overdue payments, the Respondent iilega[y crassified the roan account as a NpA, contrary to RBI guidelines, and proceeded under the SARFAESI Act. The applicant challenges the SARFAESI measures on several procedural grounds, contending that the Bank failed to comply with the mandatory requirements under sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act and Rure g of the security Interest (Enforcement) Rures, 2002 (hereinafter .,Rures,, for short)' The possession notice dated 21.05 .2024 was neither properry served upon the appricant nor affixed at a conspicuous prace on the secured property, and that the notice was not published in two leading newspapers, incruding one vernacurar newspaper having sufficient circuration in the rocality where the frat is situated. Accordingry, the appricant seeks to set aside the impugned 'ARFAESI measures, protection against dispossession, and sufficient time to regularize the account.

¶14

The Respondent Company filed reply statement along with documents. The averments thereof, briefly, are that the Applicant had availed a business loan of Rs.46 lakhs from ft secured by mortsase or sA schedr," o."oi:,;"tJJi:il:11: declared NpA on $.02.2024 due to irregular payments. subsequentry' the Respondent issued a demand notice under section t3(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, on 08.02.20 24, foltowed by a Possession Notice dated 77.05,2024 under Secl the Bank nvoked r".,,on ;;:; r;:::;rz;ffif'l:,T::":

¶15

Page 3 of 5

¶16

sA No. 21312025

¶17

warrant from the 1't Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, which^{led to} the issuance of a vacate notice by the Advocate Commissioner^{in May} 2025, directing the Applicant to vacate the residential flat^{within a} stipulated time. The Bank asserts that all statutory notices^under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) were duly served,^{including by registered} post and paper publication in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules, 2002, and that the instant application is a delaying^{tactic withoutany} substantial merit. The Respondent accordingly^prays for dismissal^of the SA with costs.

¶18

The Learned Counsel for the Applicant reported that order^may be^passed based on records. Heard the^{Learned Counsel appearing} for the Respondent Company. Perused the material brought^on record.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the Respondent Company^{while reiterating} the contents of the reply statement, denied^{applicant'saverments'He} placed reliance on the material papers annexed with reply statement and submitted that the applicant account^{was classified as an NPA as} per RBI guidelines due to default in payment and all the statutory notices have been issued in accordance with^{law. The Respondent} Company has strictly followed the due^{procedure prescribed under} the Act, 2002 and the Rules thereunder,^hence the^{SA is liable to be} dismissed.

¶20

The points for consideration are as^{follows :} -

¶21

i) Whether the Applicant made out any^{valid ground for} quashing the action of the Respondent Company including takinE the physical^possession of the SA^schedule property through Advocate Commissioner appointed under the^provision of the Section 14 of the^SARFESIAct?

¶22

ii) ro what retief? /W"*

Page 4 of 5

SA No.21312025

Point No,(i):

Admittedly, the Applicant availed loan facility against mortgage of schedule^property and failed to make^payment as^per repayment schedule for reasons whatsoever. Hence the action of the Respondent Company in classifying the account as NPA and initiating the SARFESI proceedings are found to be lawful.

¶27

8- -,^ Jhelespo.Ddent^Campany^tr led^materiaL dorumertts^{aloqg^with} reply statement as proof of compliance of due^procedure of law. Pages 37 to 50 are the Photostat copies of postal receipts, track reports and publication in English and Telugu^(vernacular language) newspapers on 25.02.2024 in respect of the demand notice. Similarly, Pages 51 to 59 are the Photostat copies of^postal receipts, track reports, photographs as proof of affixture on secured asset and publication in English and Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers on 21.05.2024 in respect of the possession notice dated U.05.2024. The documents placed on record by the Respondent Company remain undisputed. In view of suFficient proof place on record, I find no infraction of section 13(2) & 13(a) of the Act and Rules 3, 8(1) & B(2) of the Rules, 2002. As a secured creditor the Respondent Company has taken legal recourse under the Act, 2002 including taking physical possession of secured asset, which cannot be categorized as illegal or arbitrary.

¶28

In view of above observations, it is concluded that the applicant failed to establish any valid ground to set aside the measures of the Respondent Company under the Act, 2002 including taking physical possession in respect of the SA schedule property and accordingly the sA is riabre to be dismissed. (lWrX

Page 5 of 5

SA No. 213l202s

Point No.(ii):