Dismissed

p srinivasulu v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

DRT16 Jan 2026SA/466/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act, claiming non-compliance with statutory procedures. The Tribunal found the Respondent followed due process, including notice publication, reply to objections, and statutory notices. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The summoning application was dismissed; the interlocutory applications pending stand disposed of.

p srinivasulu versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I ATHYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 16TH DAYOFJANUARY, 2c26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.466,/2024

¶5

Pallapu Srinivasulu, S/ oPallapu Laxmaiah Aged 48 years, Occ:br-isiness, R/o Plot No.ll-14-3O, Haripuri Colony, Road No.4, Kothapet, Saroornagar, Near Tennis Court, Hyderabad-SoO 035.

¶6

Smt.Vajramma^pallapu, W/o Pallapu Srinivasulu, R/o Plot No.l l-14-3O, Haripuri Colony, Road No.4, Kothapet, Saroornagar, Near Tennis Court, Hyderabad-SOO 035

¶7

... Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Cholamandalam Investment& Finance Company Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized Officer Chola Crest, C54-5S& Super B-4, Thiru Vi-la Industrial Area, Guindy, Chennai, Tamilnadu-600032. .. . Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicants : Sri Arun Marripeddi Counselfor Respondent : Si G. Adian Kiran Raj

¶11

Reserued on :15.12.2025 : 16.01.2026 : 17.01.2026

¶12

This and Reconstruction of ..\

¶13

r lnanclal of Security Interest Act, 2OO2

¶14

(SARFAESI Act, 2oo2) cha,enging the action of the Respondent in issuing Possession Notice dt.O2.1 1.2024 in respect of the schedule property and to declare the same as null and void.

¶15

The averments made in the Application in brief are as follows:

¶16

The Applicants availed loan from the Respondent and created mortgage against the schedule property. Due to health issues, the Applicants could not pay some instalments and the Respondent decrared the loan account of the Appricants as NpA. The Respondent issued demand notice dt.L6.O8.2O24 without showing the subsequent payments made by the Applicants and the Respondent also failed to give reply to the objections raised by the Applicants in response to the said demand notice. without complying with section r3(3A) of the sARFAESI Ac t,2oo2,the Respondent issued possession notice dt.02. r r.2024 u/s 13(a) of the sARFAESI Act, 2002 a..d the said notice was neither published in two leading newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property and so, the said notice is not legal and valid. Hence the SA.

¶17

3' The Respondent filed their Reply denying alr the adverse a,egations made in the SA and contended that the Applicants availed loan from the Respondent for construction of house and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property and thereafter, committed default in repaying the 10an dues' So, the loan account was crassified as NpA by the Respondent by duly folrowing tre RBI guidelines. Thereafter, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2002 and issued demand notice dt. 16. Og.2O24 and the said notice was served on the Applicants as admitted by them and in response to the objections raised by the A eir letter dL.3O.Og.2O24 in response to the said demand-' t issued Reply and thereby complied with Section i3(3A) I Act,2OO2. Thereafter, the Respondent issued^iRossTs5 ior, .roti". ll.2124 by duly following the procedure JAil 2026

¶18

¶19

prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder and there are no deviations. Accordingry prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶20

Heard rd' counsel for the Appricants and Ld. counsel for the Respondent and perused the material brought on record.

¶21

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶22

i. uthether the Applicants haue established" ang ualid. ground.s for settirry aside the possession Notice dt.02.71.2024 i.ssued bg the Respondent agail*t the schedule property?

¶23

ii. To what relief ?

¶24

Potnt No.lil:-

¶25

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

¶26

6, There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Appricants availed roan facilities from the Respondent and later committed default in repa5rment of loan dues and the Respondent issued demand notice dt. 16.0g.2024 and admittedly, the Applicants received the said notice.

¶27

The specific contention of the Applicants is that the Respondent fa,ed to follow tYroje{gre contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 26OZ air{,,fules made thereunder in issuing the possession notice at.oZ. t*.Zoi+."arld s 'o;,h\ a id n osses o i .,,. h^+;^- :^ _^. r^__r s on notice is not legal and valid. W"*n;Ta^affip

¶28

i *.; 1 6;Rru rt)zn *
l{. , ?

¶29

But the Respondent contended that the Respondent issued demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants by duly following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of SARFAEST Act, 2oo2 and Rures made thereunder and there are no violations.

¶30

9 ' In order to prove their contentions, the Respondent l,ed materiar documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said material

¶31

documents, it is clear that after classi$ring the loan account of the Applicants as NPA, the Respondent issued demand notice dt. 16.0 g.2024 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and the Applicants also admitted the receipt of the said notice. The said demand notice was arso published din two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper pubrication fired by the Respondent' The Respondent has issued reply to the objections raised by the Applicants vide their letter dt.30.0g.2o24 in response to the said demand notice and to prove the same, the Respondent encrosed copy of their reply letter along with the Reply and thereby compried with Section 13(3A) of the SARFAEST Act,2oo2. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.02.r r.2024 u/s r3(4) of the sARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the same to the Applicants through Regd. post as evidenced by the postal track reports liled by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of the paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was affixed on the schedule propert5r as depicted in the copy of photographs liled by the Respondent. Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondent has scrupulously complied with Rule g(1)&(2) of Securit5z Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in taking possession of the secured asset u/s l3(4) of the Act and so, the said notice dt.02.1 r -2024 is perfectly legal and valid. Accordingly, this point is .1y_.::9,i1 fav.our of the Respondent and against the Applicants.

¶32

; 4F
iS 16tl,uryt1 *
4

¶33

W*-'s#

¶34

Polnt No.(ll)r

¶35

10' In the result, sA 466124 is dismissed as there are no merits in the SA. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, sharl 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, transcribed. bg h.er, conected., signed. and. pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 16th day of ,tanuarA, ZOZAj

¶38

sd/(G. GOPI CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

.ffi%
B 16uNryn :,
r?'a ^ i,l
&***#

¶40

tr:slfu

p srinivasulu v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

p srinivasulu 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

A Ramesh Babu versus M S Shriram Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus Dharmvir Kumar

State Bank of India versus Mr. Chollangi Surendra Kumar

Smt Kethavath Neelamma versus Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank)

Indian Bank versus M/S. City Grand Dhotel

State Bank of India versus Basa Technologies Private Limited