Dismissed

Sri K Chandrasekhar v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT27 May 2025SA/140/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a sale application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal upheld the respondent bank's right to retain physical possession of secured property. The court rejected the applicant's claim of invalid possession, finding that the bank strictly followed the statutory procedure for issuing notices and obtaining court-ordered possession through an advocate commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Re-delivery of the schedule property to the applicant was not granted as the possession proceedings were lawful.

Sri K Chandrasekhar versus Icici Bank Limited — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 27TH DAYOFMAY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING^OFFTCER

¶4

sA.No.140/2022

¶5

Sri K.Chandrasekhar, S/o late K.Ramacdhandra Rao, Aged 56 years, occ:business, R/o Fiat No.302, M.G. BalajiResidncy, West Marredpally, Hyderabad-500026.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

ICICI Bank Rep. by its Authorized Officer Gachibowli branch, ICICI Bank towers, Regional ofhce, 6fr floor, South Wing, Tower-3, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-SOO 032.

¶9

.... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant

¶11

Counsel for the Respondent

¶12

Sri B. Sanjag Kumar Si S.Nagesh Reddg

¶13

.:ORDER:.

¶14

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s. 17 of the^SARFAESIAct, 2002, challenging the proceedings initiated by the^{Respondentfor} taking physical possession of the schedule^propert5z u/s¹⁴ of^the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 pursuant to the orders of^{Ld.CMM, Hyderabad} consequent to the possession notice and for re-deiivery of the schedule propeny.

¶15

The averments made in the

¶16

sA L40/22

¶17

The Applicant availed housing loan from the Respondent in the year 2005 for an amount of Rs.29,2g,9961_and, created mortgage in respect of the schedule property. The Applicant has leased out the schedule property to R.Nanda Kishore but in view of the non_payment of rents by the tenant, the Applicant courd not pay some loan instarments and the loan account was classified as NpA. The Respondent areged to have issued demand notice to the Applicant however, the Applicant has not received the said demand notice. The Respondent alreged to have issued possession notice dt. 17.05.2022 but the said possession notice was not published in two leading newspapers nor afhxed on the schedule property. Thereafter, one advocate commissioner came to the schedule property and affixed notice dt.o9.0 s.2o22 on the schedule property and subsequently, on 16.os.2022 the said advocate commissioner took physical possession of the schedule property and handed over the same to the Respondent Bank. Hence the SA.

¶18

The Respondentfiled Reply by denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA' It is contended that in view of the default committed by the Applicant in repaying the loan dues, the loan account was classified as NpA and the Respondent issued demand notice dt.31.08.2016 u/s t3(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and, the said notice was served on the Applicant. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt. 17.05.2022 and the said notice was affixed on the schedule propert5r and also published in daily newspapers on 22.05.2022. Thereafter, the Respondent approached Ld.CMM, Hyderabad and obtained orders for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the advocate commissioner has taken possession of the schedule property and delivered the same to the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has ure contemplated under the provisions of Rules made thereunder in taking physical ion oi-fhe sch nld* ropertyand there are no 7^{? il$ll ?-'56} \l

¶19

sA t4o/22

¶20

deviations. Hence there are no merits in the SA and the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

4' Heard Ld. counser for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for Respondent. Perused the material brought on record.

¶22

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,_ Whether the Applicant has established ang ual.id grounds for redelivery of the schedule propertg which was taken possession bg

¶23

the aduocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CMM, Hgderabad?

¶24

ii) To uhat relieP

¶25

Polnt No.lll:-

¶26

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

¶27

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed roan from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule properties and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues. The present SA is liled when the Respondent initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner.

¶28

The specihc contention of the Applicant is that without issuing demand notice and possession notice under the provisions of SARFAESI es made thereunder, the Respondent ,^Hyderabad for appointment of

¶29

advocate and vocate commissioner appointed by

¶30

sAt4o/22

¶31

Ld.cMMtook physical possession of the schedule property and so, the Applicant is entitled for re-delivery of the schedule property.

¶32

Per contra, the Respondent contended that the Respondent has strictly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rures made thereunder in issuing all the relevant notices to the Applicant and in taking physical possession of the schedule property.

¶33

To substantiate their contentions, the Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply fiIed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.31.08.2016 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd. Post and the same was received by the Applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgments filed by the Respondent.Thereafter the Respondent issued possession Notice dt.17.05.2022 and the said notice was also sent through Regd. post and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent.Thus the Respondent has duly complied with Rule 8(1)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2. As per the report of the advocate commissioner dt.17.05.2022,it is clear that in pursuance of the orders of Ld.cMM, Hyderabad in crl.M.P.No.57 12022, he has taken physical possession of the schedule property from the Applicant under panchanama onl7 .O5.2O22.

¶34

As per the Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the :t\q to approach the concerned District '1. '.i\ 4't^{l$fiagistrate} r.tii for appointment of advocate possession of the secured asset. In

¶35

sA 140/22

¶36

the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent approached Ld.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad and the Ld.CMM after going through the record, appointed advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the advocate commissioner admittedly issued notice to the Applicant and executed the warrant under panchanama. So, when the physicalpossession of the secured asset is taken by the secured creditor by invoking the provisions of section 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2002, after following the due procedure, the Applicant is not entitled for re_delivery of the schedule property.

¶37

So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings initiated by the Respondent before the Ld.CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad u/s 14 of the Act for taking physical possession of the schedule property are quite legal and strictly in accordance with the provisions of sARFAEST Act, 2oo2 and there are no violations and so, the Applicant is not entitred for re-delivery of the schedule property which was taken possession by the advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CMM, Hyderabad. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant. Polnt No.lll):-

¶38

¶39

In the result, sA r40I 2022 is dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶40

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

¶41

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(DictateddaA of M to bv her, coneaed, signed and. pfonounced by me in tt4 open courl 0n this the 2vh

¶43

2 r iiiYms I
M-# il"dw

¶44

sd/(c. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

Sri K Chandrasekhar v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Chandrasekhar 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

National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development versus M/S Navajeevan Organization

Kondaveeti Sita versus State Bank of India

Ms Mecwel Constructions Private Limited versus Canara Bank

Union Bank of India versus Sri. M. Venkata Srinivas Rao

Canara Bank versus Sri Qamar Ahmed Qureshi

Mr Vaddalapu Srinivas versus Union Bank of India