Dismissed

Sri. Nilesh Chunilal Sanghoi v. Cfm Asset Management Private Ltd.

DRT2 Feb 2026SA/412/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI Act application, the applicant challenged the respondent's proceedings to take physical possession of secured property, claiming lack of compliance with Section 13 and improper notice. The tribunal held the strict procedural requirements were met, notices were published and served, and the application was dismissed as barred by limitation.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; proceedings for taking physical possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act upheld.

Sri. Nilesh Chunilal Sanghoi versus Cfm Asset Management… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.412/2024

¶5

Sri Nilesh Chunilal Sanghoi, S/o Virji Chunilal Sanghoi, Aged 52 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.5-8-42, Flat No.8,301, Plot No.25, Nandanam Apartnemnts, Fateh Sultan Lane, Nampally, Hyderabad-SOO 00 1

... Applicant

Versus

ARCIL

(Previously CFM Asset Management P.Ltd.) 2O7, Blnuvana Towers, SD Road,Sec.bad. Rep. by its Authorized Officer

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Sri ?. Vijag Kumar Counsel for Respondent ; Sn G. Prabhakar Sharma

¶12

Reserued on :07.O1.2O25 Pronounced o;t :02.02.2026 Uploaded on :02.02.2026

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This application is filed by the Applicant t.ls.l7^{of the SARFAESIAct,} 2OO2, challenging the proceedings initiated^{by the Respondent for} taking physical possession of the^{schedulepropertythroughAdvocate} commissioner pursuant to the orders of^{Ld'Addl.CJM, Nampally,} Hyderabad i No.1056/23 consequent to^{the possession notice} and to and void. d. EB d.$ vermc.Li'-s made in the in briei, are that;

¶15

The Applicant availed loan of Rs.85 lakhs from the Indusind Bank and the same is assigned to the Respondent herein. Due to financial problems, the Applicant could not pay some instalments. A11 of^a sudden, the Respondent issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of^the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the said notice was not^personally served on the Applicant. Without issuing possession notice, the Respondent straightaway, initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the^{SARFAESIAct, 2OO2} for taking physical possession of the schedule^{propertyand the} advocate commissioner appointed by the^{Ld.Addl.CJM,Nampally,} Hyderabad issued notice to the Applicant^{to vacate the schedule} property and so the said proceedings are null and^{void. The impugned} possession notice dt.10.1O.2O19 was^{not published in two leading} newspapers and also not affixed^{on the scheduleproperty. Hence the} SA.

¶16

Respondent filed Reply^{denyingall the adverse allegations made in the} SA and contended that^{the Applicantas borrower and his wife Smt.} Bhavan Nilesh Sanghoi^{and M/s opal flooring P.Ltd. rep. by its} Managing Director-the Applicant^{herein as co-borrowers availed loan} from the Indusind Bank^{Ltd. and the Applicant and his wife created} mortgage against the^{schedule property and thereafter, they committed} default in repaying^{the loandueand so, the loan accountwas ciassified} as NpA on 07.02.2018^{and the loan account has been assignedto CFM} Asset Reconstruction^{P.Ltd. and the CFM Asset Reconstructionissued} demand notice^{dt.24.O5.2019 and possession notice dt. 10. lO.2O19 to} the Applicant and the^{said noticeswere servedon the Appiicant . The} said possession notice^{was pubiishedin The NewIndianExpress and} Mana Telangana daily^{newspapers and the same was also a-ffixed on the} s schedule property.^{The CFM AssetReconstructionCompanyassigned} g with its securities to^{AssetReconstruction Company} IL) So, the Respondent^{herein initiatedproceedings} d* the of SARFAESI Act,^{2OO2 and issued demand notice} and^possession otice to the Applicant^{and others- Thereafter,the} 0 2 FtB ?026^*

d*
" ltu
'Jl

;Efr\w

Respondent initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner and the advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.Addl.CJM, Nampally, Hyderabad issued notice to the Applicant to vacate the schedule property. Thus the Respondent has followed the procedure prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in proceeding against the secured asset u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶21

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for^the Respondent. Perused the material brought^{on record.}

¶22

Now the points that arise for consideration^are

¶23

whether the Applicant hc-s^{establishedana ualidgrounds} for challenging the proceedings^{initiatedbg the Respondent} for^taking phgsical possesslon of the schedule^{propertg through aduocate} commissioner?

¶24

¶25

'l'o tuhat retief ?

¶26

Point rVo.{if :-

¶27

During the course of arguments,^{Ld. Counsel for the Applicant andLd.} Counsel for the Respondent^{reiterated their respectiveversions as stated} supra.

¶28

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant and others
ilities from the Indusind Bank Ltd. by creating mortgage
phedule property and thereafter committed default in
,'f'S the S.
, *l , i+'
i: o2tEBzuzs ;

¶29

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, straightaway initiated proceeded for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner u/s t4 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 without following due process of law and so, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent are not legal and valid.

¶30

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have 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 also in initiating proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2.

¶31

To substantiate their contention, Respondent filed material documents along with their Reply. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classifying the loan account of the Applicant as NPA, CFM Asset Reconstruction P.Ltd. issued Demand notice dt.24.O5.2019 u/s 13(2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2CO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others through Regd. Post and the sarne was duly served on the Applicant as evidenced by^r-he postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent. When the Applicant failed to comply with the said demand notice, Respondent issued possession notice dt.10.10.2019 u/s 13(a) of the Act,2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicant and others through Regd. Post and the same was served on the Applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgments filed by the Respondent. The said notice was published in Telugu and Bnglish daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper pubiication Iiled by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copy of photograph filed ent. Thus the Respondent have duly followed the tcd u/r B(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) lSSU impugned possession notice dt.10.10.2019 u/s ARFAE ,2OO2^{for taking possession of theschccltrle}

¶32

property. However, the present SA is liled on 22.10.2024 wherein the Applicant has been challenging the possession notice dt.10.10.2019 and the same is barred by limitation.

¶33

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(a) 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 of the secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, Respondent being secured creditor, approached Ld.Addl.CJM, Nampaily, Hyderabad u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crl.M.P.No.1056l23 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.Add1.C,JN4, Namparlly, Hyderabad, after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner and the said advocate commissioner visited the schedule property and issued notice to the Applicant for vacating the schedule property. So the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 are perfectly lega1 ald valid.

¶34

t2. Sr, considering all the circumstances. I anrr 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,2OO2. Accordingly, this^{point is} answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶35

Point No.(ii):-

¶36

is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶37

0 2 rr8 2026

¶38

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

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned .

¶40

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and" pronounced. bg me in the open court on tltis the 2"d dag of Februarg, 2026)

¶41

sd/-

¶42

(G. GOPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

r 02 FEB 2026
rd
"

¶44

5,:W

¶45

oRr-r, r,voFRnBnD.

Sri. Nilesh Chunilal Sanghoi v. Cfm Asset Management Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nilesh Chunilal Sanghoi v. Cfm Asset Management Private Ltd.

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

State Bank of India versus Ms.Parsi Rohini

M/s Surex Auto works versus Origo Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Sree Krishna Tractors versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri Muramalla Mahesh

State Bank of India versus Sri. Durgam Ramesh

Bank of Baroda versus Sri Buddha Engineering and Constructions Private Limited