Dismissed

Chethi Rajkumar v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT16 Jul 2025SA/140/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the bank's possession proceedings. The court held that the bank duly served notices, published them in newspapers, affixed them to the property, and followed the procedure mandated by the Act and Rules. No violations were found.

What did the court decide?

The tenant application (SA No. 140/2023) was dismissed as it had no merits.

Chethi Rajkumar versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 16TH DAYOF JULY,2C.25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.14O./2O23

¶5

Sri Chethi Raj Kumar, S/o Laxminarayana, Aged 48 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.25- 6-254, y idyanagar, Arya Nagar Kazipet Mandal, Hanamkonda Urban, Warangal District.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

ICICI Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized officer Situated at 4l 10, Mythree Tower, BommanhalliHoser Main Road, Bangalore-560 068

¶9

.... Respondent Bank

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant

¶11

Counsel for the Respondent

¶12

Si D.Raghatrulu Sri G.Adian Kiran Raj

¶13

:ORDER:,

¶14

This application is fired by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent Bank for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Hanamkondain

¶15

Crl.M.P.No. 12/2023 consequent to the possession notice and to declare the same as illegal and void. made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶16

ed loan from the RespondentBank and created pect of the schedule propertlr.As the Applicant the business, he could not repay the loan dues. So

¶17

the Respondent Bank initiated proceedings under the Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crl.M.p.No.t2 /2023 before the Ld.CJM, Hanamkonda for appointment of advocate commissioner in pursuance of the possession notice d,t.16.o4.2o22.The said advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.cJM, Hanmkonda issued notice dt.21.O3.2O23 for taking physical possession of the schedule property. The Respondent Bank failed to serve demand notice and possession notice on the Applicant. The said possession notice was not published in two leading newspapers and not affixed on the schedule property and so the steps initiated by the Bank for taking physical possession of the schedule property are illegal. Hence the SA.

¶18

¶19

The Respondent Bank filed their Replydenying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant having availed loan from the Respondent Bank, failed to repay the loan dues.So, the loan account was classified as NpA and accordingly, Respondent issued demand notice dt.3o.oa.2o22 to the Applicant and the said notice was received by the applicant. Thereafter, the bank issued possession notice d,r.).6.O4.2O22 to the Applicant by strictly following the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder. Later, the Bank initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 before Ld.CJM, Hanamkonda for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r. The said advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.CJM, Hanamkonda issued notice dt.21.O3.2O23 to the Applicant for vacating the schedule premises and thus the bank has duly followed the procedure mandated under of SARFAESI AcI, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder. spondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶20

ii,;.

¶21

*4.

¶22

for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the perused the material brought on record.

¶23

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶24

i. tuhether tLrc Applicant has established any ualid. ground"s for

¶25

challenging the steps initiated bg the Respond.ent for taking

¶26

phgsical possession o/ th.e scledule propertA through ad.uocate

¶27

commissioner?

¶28

ii. To what relief ?

¶29

Potnt No.lil:-

¶30

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld.

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent Bank reiterated their respective versions as

¶32

stated supra.

¶33

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicantavailed roan from the Respondent and created mortgage in respect of the schedule propert5r to secure the said loan and thereafter, he committed default in repaying the 10an dues. There is arso no dispute regarding the fact that the Respondent bank issued demand notice and possession notice.

¶34

The specific contention of the Applicant is that without publishing the impugned possession notice in two daily newspapers and also without affixing the said notice on the schedule property, the Respondent straightaway, initiated steps for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner without following due

¶35

P.f,qQe6,5.o f law.

¶36

and also in taking steps u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking physical possession of the schedule property.

¶37

10' In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent Bank filed relevant materiar documents along with the Repry fired by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.3o.o8.2o22 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the bank. In fact, the said notice was arso published in Terugr: and Engrish da y newspapers. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicant. Thereafter, theRespondent issued possession notice dt.r6.o4.2022u/s 13(4) of the Act and the said notice was received by the Applicant. In fact, the Applicant filed copy of the said possession notice along with the SA frled by him. The said possession notice was published in English and rerugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedure property as depicted in the photographs Iiled by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has scrupulously followed Rure g(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in taking symbolic possession of the schedule property.

¶38

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, after

¶39

issuance of possession notice u/s 13( ) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physicar possession of the secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent approached Hanamkondau/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of property.Ld.CJM, Hanamkondaafter going through the ted advocate commissioner and the said advocate visited the schedule property and issued notice to the Applicant for vacating the schedule property and

¶40

the Applicant received the said notice. So, the said notice issued by the advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedure property is perfectly legal and valid.

¶41

12 ' So' considering a, the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings initiated by the Respondent bank before the Ld.CJM, Hanamkondau/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking physical possession of the schedule property are quite legal and valid and strictly in accordance with the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder and there are no viorations. Accordingry, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent bank and against the Applicant.

¶42

Potnt No,(tl)t

¶43

In the resurt, SA r4ol2o23 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶44

t4. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand

¶45

disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶46

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶47

'il;Zfi";;^{'!|r?,t""""*u"obv her,coftected,sisnedand proftouncedbsme in the open counontti.s the16,h}

¶48

1$Jtlls

¶49

sd/(c. coPr cHANDf PRESIDING OFFICER

Chethi Rajkumar v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chethi Rajkumar 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

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Sivva Revanth Kumar

Syed Mahmood Mohiuddin versus Union Bank of India

Guntala Krishna Kumar Goud versus Canara Bank

T Parthasaradhi versus Canara Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Lakshmi Sai Fertilizers Pesticides and Seeds

State Bank of India versus M/S. Dhatukaram Industries