Dismissed

Ms Manikanta Traders v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT25 Feb 2025SA/104/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Debt Recovery Tribunal application, an applicant challenged a possession notice issued by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The bank demonstrated proper service and publication of notices. The tribunal found the bank established valid grounds for the notice and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as there are no merits; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Ms Manikanta Traders versus Icici Bank Limited — Intellectual Property | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL _ 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 25I I] DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2C.25

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No. 104/2C22

¶4

M/s Manikanta Traders Rep. by Proprietor Mr. KommineniUpender S/o K. Virabhadram, aged 3g years, R/o H.No .lO-22, Ravinuthala Grampanchayat, Bonakal Mandal, Khammam District

¶5

Versus ICICI Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized, officer Branch Office: ICICI Bank Ltd., 4l 10, Mythree Tower, Bommanhalli Hosur, Main Road, Bangalore_SOO 06g.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

... Respondent

¶8

Counsel for the Applicctnts : Sn In Sridhar Redd.g Counsel for Respond"ent : Sn S. Nagesh Reddg

¶9

ORDER

¶10

t. This Application is filed u/s. 17of the Securitization and Reconstruction of F'inancial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2) challenging the action of the Respondent bank in issuing possession Norice dt.13.04.,2022 in respect of the schedule property and to decla gll and void.

¶11

The averments

¶12

;"8,,".? rief are as follows: i;^{z s FrB Ttrzi} : W

¶13

The Applicantavailed loan from the Respondent bank and he started repaying the loan amounts regularly. All of a sudden, the agencypersons came to the Applicant on 20.04.2022 and informed that the Respondent initiated sARFAEslproceedings against the Applicant in respect of the schedure property and demanded the Applicant to vacate the scheduleproperty and handover the physical possession of the schedule property' At the request of the Applicant, the said persons gave copies of Notice dt'16'04'2022 and symbolic possession notice dt.1g.04.2022. Demand notice and possession notice are not served on the Applicant and the said possession notice was not affixed on the schedule property nor published in two leading newspapers and hence the impugned possession notice is null and void. Hence the SA.

¶14

3' The Respondent Bank filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicantafter availing loan from the Respondent, committed default in repaying the loan amounts and so' the Respondent Bank initiated proceedings by classifying the loan account as NpA and issued demand notice dt.r4.rl.2021 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 to the Applicant. But the Applicant failed to comply with the said demand notice and So, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.13.04.2022 and the said notice was published in newspapers and affixed on the schedule property. The Respondent also issued intimation notice on rg.o4.2o22, post notice of symbolic possession' Thus, the Respondent Bank has followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in proceeding under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 against the schedule property. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶15

Ilcard Ld. and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent bank an sed ateria t on record. 2 5 rEBr[r^* i F11. ,{'?,

¶16

*#$Y

¶17

Now the points that arise for consideration are i. uhether the Appricant has estabrished ana uarid. ground.sfor

¶18

challengingthe possession Notice d.t.i3.o4.2o22 issued. bg the Respondent Bank aqainst the schedule propertg?

¶19

To what relief ?

¶20

Point^jVo.(i|:-

¶21

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

¶22

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed loan from Respondent Bank and thereafter committed default in repayment of

¶23

loan amounts due.

¶24

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent Bank has not served demand notice and possession notice on the Applicant and without issuing any such notice, the Respondent bank threatened the Applicant to vacate the schedule property whereas the Respondent Bank contended that the Bank has scrupulosity followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice.

¶25

B. In support of their contentions, the Respondent Bank filed material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said material documents, it is clear that the Responcle4t Bank issued demand notice dt.14. 12.2O2l to t and the said notice was sent though Regd. Post a also pubtished in English and relugu dr. %\ daily news r6prs ana t th;q\alid service of demand notice on the Applicant t bank issued Possession Notice

¶26

dt'13'04'2022 under Rule 8(1) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 for taking symbolic possession of the schedule property and the said notice was also sent to the Applicant through Regd. post. The said notice was published in Telugu and English daiiy newspapers as evidenced by the copies of the paper pubiication and copy of the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Respondent Bank. Hence in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondent Bank has scrupulously followed the procedure in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and so, the said possession notice dt.13.04.2022 is perfectly legal and valid. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent Bank and against the Applicant.

¶27

Point No.(it):-

¶28

9 ' In the result, SA 1 04 12022 is dismissed as there are no merits in the SA.consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶29

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶30

(Dictated to the P.S, transcribed. bg her, corrected., signed and pronounced bg me in the open courl on this the 21il,dag of February, 2O2S)

¶31

-ffi
'rf
; zsFEBzom I
W*

¶32

sd/(c. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

ilrYW

Asst. ffletrar

DRT.',^HYAF-R,ABAD,

Ms Manikanta Traders v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Manikanta Traders 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

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Sunil Kumar Agarwal

kankanala Swarupa and others versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

shaik awaiz versus the Gayatri Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Momin Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Dayakar Transport

Sri Gugloth Ramesh versus Bank of Baroda