The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitisation Application filed by applicants against ICICI Bank. The Tribunal held that the bank validly served demand and possession notices as per the SARFAESI Act and Rules, and discharged the burden regarding compliance.
Securitisation Application dismissed; interim applications pending close.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL_ II AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB, (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDiNG OFFICER
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. 6 OF 2023
Between:
And
ICICI Bank Limited Rep by its Authorised Officer ICICI Bank Towers Wall Street Plaza, 2'd Ftoor Beside Old Airport Beg u m pet, Hyd e ra bad- 50 00 1 6, Telangana. .....Respondent. Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. G.L.PrasadaRao. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. S. Nagesh Reddy. /74v</ / ./2'^,'> l-v
sA 6/2023
2
-: o-B-9EB:-
sA 6/2023
Whether the APPlicants madeout i) any valid ground forquashingthe notice issued bY theresPondent under rule 8(6) of theSecuritY Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2002 against the SA schedule ProPertY?
sA 612023
4
i, Relidt
Point No.(i):
sA 6 / 2023
placed on record photocopies of newspapers as to publication of Possession notice in The New Indian Express and the Nava Telengana editions dated ZZ.tL.2OZZ respectively besides photograph evidencing affixture of possession notice on the secured assets. These documents have not been disputed by the applicants. Accordingly, I do not find any fault on the part of the respondent in serving the possession in terms of the provisions of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, ZOO2. Applicants have not placed any material on record as to whether they have taken up the issue of violation of provisions of Section 13(2) in serving demand notice even after receipt of possession notice. According to their own revelations, applicants approached the respondent bank to convey their difficulties in clearing the loan amount with a request to bring down the interest rate in line with the other banks. It is not the case of the applicants that they were regular in repayment of loan amount. Applicants have not proved their bonafides to comply the conditional order passed by this Tribunal in 14.1863 ot 2022 in the sA dated 07.02.2023, Accordingly, I do not find any irregularity on the part of the respondent in issuing the impugned Rule 8(6) notice under the provisions of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 fot recovery of its legitimate dues.
B. In view of the above discussion, appllcants have failed to make out any valid ground to set aside the notice dated 16,L1.2022 issued u/r 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rutes, 2002 by the respondent bank for recovery of its dues. Accordingly, the SA is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. /,f)Y-.-q (j/'t'"
sA612023
6
Point No.(ii)
,1nrrn....,qp(r - t"''
(RAMESHWARKOTHE) PRESIDINGOFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants made out any valid ground for quashing the notice issued under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002?
Whether the respondents bank complied with Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Meghana Enterprises Rep by its Proprietor Ramakrishna Rao
ICICI Bank Limited
Rameshwar Kothe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
