Dismissed

Supriya Bandam v. Cholamandalam Investment

DRT19 Feb 2026SA/394/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Upholding the secure creditor's compliance with statutory notice requirements adopted under Section 13 and the appointment of an advocate commissioner under Section 14, the Tribunal held the proceedings for taking physical possession of the secure asset were legal and valid

What did the court decide?

The Single Application No. 394 of 2024 is dismissed as having no merits.

Supriya Bandam versus Cholamandalam Investment — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL_ I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE^{.I gTH} DAYOF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.394/2024

¶5

Ms.Supriya Bandam, 7-5I12, Subhash Nagar, Manthani, Peddapalli, Karimnagar-505184

¶6

. .. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Cholamandalam Investment & Finance company Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Officer Branch at Shop No. 1-7, H.No. 1-5,130, Fortune Mall, Kaman Road, Near Bharath Talkies, Bolwada, Karimnagar-SOsOO 1.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Si C. Sreedhar Coun sel for Respondent : M/ s Vislutu Grouer &Associates Reserved on :19.01.2026 Pronounced on : 19.O2.2026 Uplooded on : 19.O2.2O26

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This application is liled by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r through Advocate commissioner pursuqnt to the orders of Ld.CJM, peddapalli in Crl.M.P.No.1 the s€une as illegal and void and also prayed property.

¶13

The n, in brief, are that: &*

¶14

M/s Laxmi Matching centre and Ladies Tailor rep. by its proprietor, the Applicant herein availed rerm loan of Rs.50 lakhs from the Respondent but only Rs.30 lakhs was sanctioned. Due to financial problems, the Applicant could not pay some instarments. without considering the request of the Applicant for settlement of the loan account, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of sARFAESI Act'2oo2. without issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and took physical possession of the schedule property on 07.1O.2O24 and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid. Hence the SA.

¶15

J. The Respondent liled Reply denying a[ the adverse alregations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed and received business loan of Rs.50 lakhs as per the sanction letter dt.31.12.2O22 and, created mortgage against the schedule property and thereafter committed default in payment of some instalments and so, the loan account was classified as NpA on 1o.o4.2o24 as per the guidelines of RBI. Subsequently, the Respondent issued demand notice

¶16

d,t.15.O4.2O24 and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers. When the Applicant failed to comply with the said notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.O3.OZ.2Cl24 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by duly following the procedure. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and took physical possession of the schedule property on OZ.lO.2O24 though advocate commissioner. Thus, the Respondent has followed the procedure prescribed under the provisions of sARFAESI Act,2002 and Rules made ing against the secured asset u/s 14 of the there are no violations. Accordingly, rayed to SA. '.(

¶17

Heard I{.d. licant and Ld. Counsel for the brought on record.

¶18

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶19

i. utletter tte Applicant has establi,shed ang valid grounds for challerrying tlrc proceedings initiated bg the Respondent in taking phg sical possession of the schedule properlry u/ s 1 4 of the SARFIIESI Act, 2O02 through aduocate ammissioner?

¶20

ii. To whnt relief ?

¶21

Point No.lil:-

¶22

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶23

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed business loan from the Respondent and created equitable mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues and the Respondent proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and took physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commisiosner.

¶24

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and without following the contemplated procedure, initiated proceedings and took physical possession of the schedule property through advocate of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 arld so, the said Respondent against the schedule property are

¶25

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have duly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicant and also in taking physical possession ofthe schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2.

¶26

To substantiate their contention, Respondent filed material documents. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classifying the loan account of the Applicant as NPA, the Responde nt issued demand notice dt.15.O4.2O24 u/s 13(2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2OO2 arrd the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicant. When the Applicant failed to comply with the said notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.OO.OZ .2024 u/ s 13(4) of the Act,2OO2 and sent the said notice to the 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 frled by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has duly followed the procedure as contemplated u/r 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing the impugned possession notice dt.03.07.2024 u/s l3(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2002 for taking possession of the schedule property. So, the demand notice and possession notice issued by the Respondent are perfectly legal and valid.

¶27

¶28

Section 14 ofSARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2, the secured ch the concerned District Magistrate or Chief physical possession of the secured asset. In

¶29

Wa*,n#'

¶30

the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.cJM, Peddapalli u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 by filing crl.M.p.No.t46l24 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.cJM, peddapalli after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the said advocate commissioner after issuing notice to the Applicant, took physical possession of the schedule property on 07.1O.2O24.

¶31

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicant is not entitled to any relief as there are no merits in the SA. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2O02. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶32

Point No.(ii):-

¶33

In the result, sA394124 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶34

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

¶35

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶36

ibed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced. bg me in the open "ffi of February,2026) {,f sd/(G. coPr CHANDI i{., {l x 1 g FEB PRESIDING OFrICER rlvrl:uga0' K$==,,11,1;r\S;^,,

Supriya Bandam v. Cholamandalam Investment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Supriya Bandam v. Cholamandalam Investment

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Chetan Textiles

B Sanjiv Rai versus State Bank of India

Sri Katkuri Shesha Reddy versus State Bank of India

Naresh Dairy Farm versus Protium Finance Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Mr. Teppala Umamaheswara Rao

State Bank of India versus Sri. Durga Prasad Polavarapu