M/S DURG TRACTORS, vs CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

1

CGHC010438302026 2026:CGHC:46959
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5603 of 2026
1 - M/s Durg Tractors, Through Its Proprietor Ajay Singh, S/o Ram
Kunwar Singh, Aged About 62 Years, At Vill - Jeora Sirsa, Near Shyam
Dharmkanta, Dhamdha Road, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh, Pin -
491001
2 - Ajay Singh S/o Ram Kunwar Singh, Aged About 62 Years R/o Flat
No. 304, Shanti Niketan Appt, Malviya Nagar, District - Durg,
Chhattisgarh, Pin – 491001
3 - Varun Pratap Singh S/o Ajay Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Flat
No. 304, Shanti Niketan Appt, Malviya Nagar, District - Durg,
Chhattisgarh, Pin – 491001
4 - Mrs. Adesh Singh W/o Ajay Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Flat No.
304, Shanti Niketan Appt, Malviya Nagar, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh,
Pin – 491001
5 - Mrs. Deeksha Devra W/o Varun Pratap Singh, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Flat No. 304, Shanti Niketan Appt, Malviya Nagar, District - Durg,
Chhattisgarh, Pin - 491001
Digitally
signed by
SHYNA
AJAY
Date:
2026.11.05
18:44:40
+0530
SHYNA
AJAY
... Petitioner(s)

2
versus
1 - Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited,
Represented By Managing Director / Authorized Officer, Registered
Office “Chola Crest”, C54-55 and Super B-4, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial
Estate, Guindy, Chennai, Tamilnadu - 600032
2 - The Authorized Officer, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance
Company Limited, Branch / Zonal Office, Currency Tower, No. 7036 To
7059, Great Eastern Road, Near Croma, Vishal Nagar, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh 492001
3 - District Magistrate Durg, Distt - Durg (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Akansha Singh, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate
SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
05/11/2026
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged
the Notice (Annexure P/1), whereby an e-auction Sale Notice has
been issued in respect of immovable assets mortgaged by the
petitioners as security for a loan facility that presently remains
unpaid.
2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

3
a) call for the entire records of Loan Account No.
TLO1RCT00000038598 from Respondent Nos. 1
and 2, including the basis of conflicting NPA
declarations and accounting ledgers;
(b) quash and set aside the Impugned E-Auction
Sale Notice dated 13.10.2026 (Annexure P/1) and
the Symbolic Possession Notice dated 20.07.2026
(Annexure P/2) as arbitrary, illegal, and without
jurisdiction and it is further prayed for dropping the
proceedings against the petitioners under
SARFAESI Act 2002;
(c) direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the
Petitioners' repayment and restructuring proposal
dated 30.09.2026 and grant a reasonable extension
of time to regularize the loan account and EMI;
(d) direct that during the pendency of regular sittings
before DRT Jabalpur, the physical and symbolic
possession of the Petitioners over the secured
commercial premises shall not be disturbed;
(e) award the costs of the present petition in favour
of the Petitioners; and
(f) pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the interest of
justice.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the
appropriate remedy lies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal
(D.R.T.), Jabalpur, the petitioners have approached this Court as
the said Tribunal is not functional, leaving the petitioners with no
effective, immediate remedy against the e-auction scheduled for

4
18.11.2026. She submits that the Bank’s action is illegal from the
beginning because it issued the demand notice on 23.04.2026 ,
months before the loan was officially declared an NPA on
05.07.2026 and tried to dismiss its conflicting NPA dates as a
computer glitch. She submits that on 28.10.2026, Respondent No.
1 issued an Interest Paid Certificate confirming receipt of
Rs.43,75,261/- for the Financial Year 2026-27. She submits that
having accepted and adjusted Rs.49,24,000/- deposited between
April and September 2026, Respondent No. 1 cannot act with
gross arbitrariness by subjecting the petitioners' operational
establishment to a distress auction on 18.11.2026 under the guise
of total default.
4. Per contra , learned counsel for the State/Respondents objects to
the maintainability of the petition, submitting that the D.R.T.,
Jabalpur is functional, as the charge of D.R.T., Jabalpur has been
assigned to D.R.T.-2, Ahmedabad. He submits that the
petitioners ought to approach D.R.T.-2, Ahmedabad by filing an
appropriate Securitisation Application under the SARFAESI Act.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the petitioners are willing to deposit the outstanding loan
amount and have already moved an application for settlement
before the Respondent-Financial Institution, however, the said
application has been dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
documents annexed with the petition carefully.

5
7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties, particularly the submissions that the petitioners are ready
to deposit the outstanding loan amount and that the D.R.T.
Jabalpur is not functioning at present and D.R.T.-2 Ahmedabad
(Incharge of D.R.T. Jabalpur) has been assigned the cases of
DRT Jabalpur, and further since the application of the petitioners
for settlement has already been dismissed, this Court deems it
appropriate to relegate the petitioners to approach D.R.T.-2,
Ahmedabad (Incharge of D.R.T. Jabalpur) by filing a Securitisation
Application.
8. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted 20 working days' time
from today to file an appropriate Securitisation Application before
the D.R.T.-2, Ahmedabad (Incharge of D.R.T. Jabalpur).
9. In order to enable the petitioners to approach the competent
Tribunal, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken
against the petitioners by the respondents for a period of 20
working days from today.
10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Writ Petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shyna Ajay