Dismissed

Gogikar Swapna v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

DRT26 Mar 2026SA/370/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal I at Hyderabad dismissed the applicant's application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Upholding the respondent's compliance with statutory procedures regarding demand notices, possession notices, and physical possession orders, the Tribunal held the proceedings were legal and valid.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act dismissed with no order as to costs.

Gogikar Swapna versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

INTHE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-^{I AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 26TH^{DAYOFMARCH,2026}

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI^{GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

SA.No.37O/2025

¶5

Ms.Gogikar Swapna, D/o Chinna Narsaih, Aged 40 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No. 17-7-13, Ursu,^Karimabad, Near Hanuman TemPle, Warangal-506 002.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Cholamandalam Investment^{& Finance Co.Ltd.'} Hanumakonda, Branch at 3'd floor,^{D.No.2-1-1275,} Lopamudra Arcade^Mall, Naimnagar Main Road, Hanumakonda, Warangal-506009. ... Respondent : Si Arun Kumar Stgauolu Counsel for the APPlicant Counsel for Respondent : M/ s Vtshnu Grouer &Associates Reserued on : 27.01.2026 Pronounced on :26.03.2026 Uploaded on : 26.03.2026

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s.^{17 of the SARFAESIAct,} 2OO2, challenging the Pre-Sae Notice^{dt. 18.08.205} and^{also the} igitiated^{by the Respondentfor taking physicalpossession} h perty through Advocate commissioner pursuant to .d. the ers of . CJM, Warangal in Cr1.M.P.No.85l25 and also to * ft^{tEmrymnu-Ju"illegal and void.} r, rO in the application, in brief, are that: \s-, \ r," running business under the name and style of M/s Beauty Parlour and the Applicant availed Loan against Property Scheme to a tune of Rs. 19 lakhs from the Respondent and

¶11

created mortgage against the schedule property. The Applicant used to pay instalments relying on the agent of the Respondent in cash, however the Respondent has irregularly credited the amounts into the loan account and so, the loan account has been classified as NPA on 06.12.2024. Thereafter, without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent straightaway initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property pursuant to the orders in Crl. M.P.No.85/25 and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid. Thereafter the Respondent issued notice u/r 8(6) of Rules, 2002 dt.18.08.2025 without following the procedure. Hence the SA.

¶12

.r.

¶13

¶14

The Respondent fiIed Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant along with her son availed loan ofRs. 19 lakhs for business purpose by creating mortgage against the schedule property and thereafter committed default and so, the loan account was classified as NPA on 06.12.2024 as^per the^guidelines of RBI. So, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act., 2OO2 and issued demand notice dt.24.12.2024 and the said notice was served on the son of the Applicant who is also a coborrower. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.15.03.2025 by duly following the procedure. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner as per the orders of ld.CJM, Warangal in Crl.M.P.No.85 125. Thereafter, the Respondent also issued pre-sale notice dt. 18.08.2025 and there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶15

sel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the the material brought on record.

¶16

&ow th ise for consideration are *

¶17

..1. 2.6 ltAH 2fr'6

¶18

-.r 1. unetner tie has established ang ualid grounds for

¶19

',1 notice dt.78.08.2025 and also the

¶20

proceediqs initiated bg the Respondent for taking physical possession of tle schedule propertg u/s 74 of the SARFAESI Act, 2 0O2 through aduocate commissioner?

¶21

ii. To what relief ?

¶22

Potnt No.lil:-

¶23

During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the Appricant and Ld. counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶24

The undisputed facts ofthe case are that the Applicant along with her son availed loan from the Respondent by creating equitable mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶25

The specific contention of the Applicant is that without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and also issued pre-sale notice dt. 18.08.2025 and so, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent against the schedule property are null and void.

¶26

Per contra, Respondent contended that the Respondent has duly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicant and co-applicant and also in taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶27

To substantiate their contention, Respondent liled material documents. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classifying the loan account of the as NPA, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.24 of the SARAFAESI Act, 2oO2 and the said notice rnd others through Regd.post as evidenced by the Respondent. When the Applicant failed

¶28

'py

¶29

,EtilAft'e#Fia lce,^{the Respondent} issued possession notice Act,2OO2 and sent the said notice to the 3

¶30

Applicant and co-applicant through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copy of photograph filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has duly followed the procedure as contemplated u/r 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in issuing the impugned possession notice dt.15.03.2025 u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 for taking possession of the schedule property. So, the demand notice and possession notice issued by the Respondent are perfectly legal and valid.

¶31

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession ofthe secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld. CJM, Warangal u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Cr1.M.P.No.85/25 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r and so, the said proceedings are perfectly legal and valid. Thereafter, the Respondent issued Pre-sale notice dt. 18.08.2025 and the said notice is only a notice given u/r 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 for giving an opportunity to the Applicant to redeem the schedule property within 30 days and the said notice was received by the Applicant as she filed copy of the said notice along with the SA filed by her. So, the Respondent has duly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice, possession notice and pre-sale t and also in taking physical possession of

¶32

the ouF pro IP 12. So, sidering ,^Iam of t}le opinion that the is lotBilfrBe4m as there are no merits in the SA. So, terference of this Tribunal with the 4

¶33

proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 ofthe SARFAESI Act,20o2 and also the presale notice dt. 19.0g.2025 issued by the Respondent against the schedure property' Accordingry, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶34

Potnt No.(11)r

¶35

In the result, sA 3zo /2o2s is dismissed as there are no merits. 14. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶36

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶37

(Dctated. to the P.S, transcibed bg-he1.,^ go,nected, signed. and. pronounced. bg me in the open court onthis the 26th dag of Marclq 2026)

¶38

sd/(c. coPrcHAnD) PRISIIDIITG OFFICER

¶39

dr
ly
Y
4.t'4
Reglstret
'-T-!, t!..,DreiaAD.

Gogikar Swapna v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gogikar Swapna 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S Sri Ganga Beverages

Mohammed Sajeed versus Telangana Grameena Bank

Kothasamu Bhasker Rao versus M S Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitisation Company Limited

Hemalatha Granites and Another versus Indian Overseas Bank

Ms Pyramid Infra Services versus Karur Vysya Bank

Satti Gangi Reddy versus Union Bank of India