Dismissed

Mr Brahmam Kanchari v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

DRT29 Jun 2026SA/243/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal denied the applicant's request to set aside a possession notice issued by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal found that the bank had scrupulously followed all statutory requirements for issuing the demand and possession notices, dismissing the application for lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

Application no. 243/2025 was dismissed; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of without any order as to costs.

Mr Brahmam Kanchari versus Cholamandalam Investment and… — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrS THE 29rH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER SA.No.243 ol2025

¶3

Between :

¶4

Mr. Brahmam Kanchari, S/o K. Mallaiah, gender: male, Aged about 43 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.4-811, Alladurgam village And mandal, Medak district - 502 269.

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd, Represented by its Authorised officer "Chola Crest", C54-55 & Super B-4, Tiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

¶8

Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Parties:

¶10

Counsel for Applicant

¶11

Respondent

¶12

Sri D. Raghavulu

¶13

Sri G. Adrian Kiran Raj

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The applicants filed_securitisation Application under section 17 of the

¶16

29JUN

¶17

tion and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement rest Act, 2002 challenging the Possession Notice dated * by respondent bank against the schedule property. ?n7f

¶18

¶19

(5A.No.2431202,

¶20

The case in brief is that applicant herein availed^{cash housing loan for} a sum of Rs.27.00 lakhs in the^{year 2020 againstthe mortgage of} schedule mentioned^property.The applicant^{was regular in paying the} instalments and due to loss in civil^{contractbusinesscould not pay} some of the instalments.^While things^{stood thus, the respondent} bank declared the account as Non-performing^{asset whichis not in} accordance with RBI^{guidelines. It is submittedthat the respondent} bank failed to follow the due^process of^{law and issuedthe possession} notice regarding schedule^property of^{applicationwhich is illegaland} arbitrary and in violation of SARFAESI^{Act and rules made thereunder.} The impugned Possession notice was^{neither affixed on the schedule} property nor published in two leading newspapers as stipulated^under Rule B(1) and (2) of Security Interest^{(Enforcement) Rules, 2002.} Hence the SA.

¶21

Respondent bank filed reply contending that^{the applicant having} availed housing loan for a sum of^{Rs.27.00 lakhs in 2020 on mortgage} of schedule property from the^respondent bank^{committed defaultin} repaying the loan amount, so the loan account^{wasclassified as NPA} as^per the banking^{guidelineslaid by RBI. Thereafter the respondent} notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI^Act oo'ta.oi.232s applicant. The said notice^{was receivedby} *Er} ndent bank issued^possession notice dated T"'z [n:[f;'5ii6 09.05.2025 to the licant and the same was received by^the ,,. *? -Oo-" ,,;:-l by the postal acknowledgments. The^said qto Eori:irv I

¶22

(sA.No.2a3l202s)

¶23

possession notice was published in Nava Telangana Telugu daily and Business Standard English daily on 13.05.2025 and the said notice was affixed on the schedule property. Thus the respondent bank followed the Rule B(1) and (2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Hence the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

Heard the arguments of Applicant Counsel.

¶25

Now the point for consideration is

¶26

i) Whether the applicant has established any valid grounds for setting aside the Possession notice dated 09.05.2025 issued by the Respondent bank against the schedule property?

¶27

ii) To What Relief?

¶28

Point no.i)

¶29

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed housing loan of Rs.27.00 lakhs on mortgage of schedule property from the respondent bank and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan. But the specific contention of the Applicant is that the respondent bank failed to follow the procedure in issuing^possession Notice contemplated under lhe SARFAESI Act & Rules, 2002.

¶30

nt bank contended that the respondent issued ted 18.02.2025 to the applicant and thereafter )ssession notice dated 09.05.2025. The respondent

¶31

(5A.No.243/2O2sl

¶32

bank in order to establish that it has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down in SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice, enclosed the relevant documents to the reply statement filed by it.

¶33

B. As per the said documents, it is clear that on 18.02.2025, the respondent bank issued demand notice to the Applicant and the said notice was sent to them through registered post and the Applicant received the said notice as evidenced by the Postal acknowledgements filed by the bank. The demand notice was also published in Telugu Newspaper "Ninadam" and English newspaper "Financial Express" daily newspapers on 23.02.2025. Subsequently the Respondent bank issued possession notice to the Applicant. The said Possession notice was affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the respondent bank. The said Possession notice was published in "Nava Telangana" and "Business Standard" daily newspapers. Thus the respondent bank has followed the procedure laid down in Rule 8(1) and (2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules in issuing the possession notice to the Applicants. So the impugned

¶34

otice dated 09.05.2025 issued by the respondent bank is , r.1⁽ _.4 'tl ,fffig*%;: l' : : I I : : " ::i: : t'1" ^:: ::::.'" l':."- I : ,ii grounb{ruarranting ihe interference of this Tribunal with the impugned +'.

¶35

09.05.2025 issued by the Respondent bank in

¶36

'ffir',$

¶37

(SA. No.2a3l2025)

¶38

respect of schedule property. So there are no merits in the SA, hence the SA is liable to be dismissed. So this point is answered accordingly.

¶39

Point no.ii)

¶40

In the result, 5A.24312025 is dismissed.

¶41

The Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶42

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶43

(Dictated to the PA, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th June, 2026)

¶44

sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶45

2 g JUN tfrTc

Mr Brahmam Kanchari v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Brahmam Kanchari v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmi Venkataramana Constructions versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Mrs Gada Uma Lavanya versus Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Dsr Electricals

Rohit Enterprises and Others versus Icici Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sainath Poultry Feed Making Plant

V Raghavendra versus Union Bank of India