Allowed

Sri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT14 Oct 2024SA/65/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A security traceback application challenging physical possession measures taken by ICICI Bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The DRT allowed the application and quashed the possession measures as the bank failed to comply with statutory provisions or file a reply.

What did the court decide?

The security traceback application (SA 65/2023) is allowed. Measures for taking physical possession through Advocate Commissioner are set aside. The Bank is at liberty to proceed afresh.

Sri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal versus Icici Bank Limited — Writ and Judicial Review | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER. 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.65,/2023

¶5

1.Sri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, S/o late KishanlalJaiswal, Aged 76 years, Occ:Retd. Employee, R/o H.No.3-5-35 1, Vitalwadi,

¶6

Narayanaguda, Hyderabad-S0O 020.

¶7

Smt. AyushmatiJaiswal, W/o Sri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Aged 72 years, Occ:house wife, R/o H.No.3-5-35 1, Vitalwadi, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad-SOO 020. ... Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

ICICI Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Of{icer NO.4/ 10, Mytree Tower, Hosur Road, Bommanahalli, Near Oxford College of Engineering, Bangalore-560068. Karnataka. ... Respondent Bank

¶10

Counsel for the Applicants : Sri B. Dhanunjaga Respondent Bank : Exparte

¶11

ORDER

¶12

1 The Applicants filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of -Financial Assets and Enforcement of ct, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2\ challenging the Respondent Bank for taking physical Fof sch perty through Advocate commlssloner e Notice dt.16.O2. pursuant to the orders rn 1l 0m In W,--"S-V

¶13

sA 6s/2023

¶14

Cr1.M.P.No.22 12023 on the file of IX Additional CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad and to set aside the same as illegal and void.

¶15

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicants are the alleged mortgagors for the loan obtained by Mr. Naveen Kumar Arya and Ms.priti Arya for a sum of Rs.24 lakhs against the securit5r of mortgage of schedule property. There are no notices to the mortgagors in respect of the loan transaction including recall notice or demand notice. The Respondent Bank straightway proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r without following due process of law. Hence the SA.

¶16

¶17

The Respondent Bank in spite of service of notice, called absent and there was no representation even after giving several opportunities and hence the Respondent Bank was set exparte.

¶18

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and perused the material brought on record.

¶19

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶20

i) Whet?er the Applicants haue established ang ualid ground. for setting aside tte measures taken bg the Respond.ent Bank u/ s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 20O2 for taking phgsical possession of the schedule propeftg?

¶21

iil To what relief?

¶22

Point No.ll)

¶23

The Applicants filed initiated by the

¶24

the proceedings of the SARFAESI "rlr.l"ffiT..

¶25

sA6sl2023

¶26

Act,2OO2 for taking physical possession of the application schedule property. But, the Respondent bank who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property, failed to justify their action by filing Reply and produce necessary material documents to prove that the Bank has strictly followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules framed thereunder in taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Bank has not evinced any interest in contesting the matter even after giving several opportunities and failed to file their Reply and material documents to disprove the allegations of the Applicants. In the absence of any material evidence to show that the Respondent Bank has duly complied with the mandated provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002 in taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the Act, I hold that the Applicants have made a case for quashing the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank against the SA schedule property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.

¶27

Polnt No.llll:-

¶28

In the result, SA 65/2023 is allowed.

¶29

Accordingly, the measures taken by the Respondent bank for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner vide notice dt.16.o2.2o23 pursuant to the orders in Crl.M.P.No.22 12023 on the file of IX Additional CMM, Nampallly, Hyderabad are hereby set aside. However, the Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed afresh against the SA schedule property to recover their dues by duly following the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules thereunder.

¶30

The Interlocutory App No order as to costs.

¶31

hall stand disposed of. *

¶32

sA 6s/2023

¶33

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶34

(Dictated to the Priuate Secretary, transcibed by her, conected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the l4thdaA of October, 2024).

¶35

sd/-

¶36

(G. GoPTCHANDI PRESIDING OT'FICER

¶37

ft--""<br>; 'a- lrorrzrru rI
ffi,**Rt9
Wfirqq

¶38

il\wffi

¶39

";?l{hl^

Sri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal v. Icici Bank 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 Maruthi Super Stores

State Bank of India versus Mr. Datla Srinivas Raju

State Bank of India versus Mr. Degala Prabhudas

Central Bank of India versus M/S. Cold Care Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Smt. Donthi Narmada

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Chedupally Ailaiah