Dismissed

M/s.Asmr Constructions, and another v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT26 Sept 2025SA/2/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging bank actions under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. The court found no procedural deviation as notices were properly served or published, allowing possession via Section 14.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/s.Asmr Constructions, and another versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,²⁰²⁵

¶3

PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KOTHE,^{B.com, L.LB.(Hons.), M.A'} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No.02^{OF 2024}

¶5

M/s ASMR Constructions Rep by its Managing Partner Sri Shanker Reddy AkkaPalli S/o A. Narasimha Reddy, aged^{55 years}

¶6

Smt.Vasantha Reddy, Wo Shanker^{Reddy A} Aged 50 years

¶7

Both R/o H. No.7- 1-7018/103 to¹⁰⁵ Dharam Karan Road, Ameerpet Hyderabad 500 016

.......Applica nt.

Versus

ICICI Bank Limited

Rep by its Authorized Officer/Signatory Gachibowli, ICICI Towers,^{SerilingampallyMandal} Ranga Reddy District

¶12

....Respondent.

¶13

Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. T. Sridhar Reddy Counsel for Respondent : Mr.G. Adrian Kiran Raj

¶14

-:03-D.EB:-

¶15

The Applicant filed the^present Securitisation^{Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitization and^{Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act. 2002 (hereinafterreferred to as} 'the Act') assailing the measures of the^{respondent bank under} Secs.13(2) and 13(4) of the Act^{includingaction to take physical} possession of the application schedule^{propertypursuantto advocate} commissioner notice dated^{L9.12.2023in cl.MPNo.981/2023 on the} file of learned UI Addl. Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate,Hyderabad.}

¶16

The case of the applicants,ⁱⁿ brief,^{is that the 1't applicant} partnership firm represented^,oy itt oartn.o facilitv of

ffiuf#

Pate 2 of3

sA No.02/2024

Rs.3.7O crores in 2020 against mortgage of application^schedule property and had been regularly paying amounts without any default. The account is not NPA. However,^respondent bank^{officialsalong} with advocate commissioner came to the^{property on 27.72.2023and} demanded to hand over vacant^possession of^{the property.The} alleged demand notice and^{possession notice have neverbeen} received by the applicants. The respondent^{bankfailed to follow the} procedure of the law hence the SA.

¶21

The respondent bank filed^{replystatementalongwith} documents. The submissions, briefly, are^{that the respondentbank} sent several reminder notlces but in^{vain. The noticesunder} Sec.13(2) and 13(4) were returned^{unserved. Demand noticeand} possession notice were published and affixed as^{per Rules.} Respondent bank filed application u/s¹³ of^{the Act to take physical} possession. The applicant has not come with clean hands^hence SA^is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the applicants. He^{reiteratedhis} version as in the application.^{Perused the writtenarguments of} respondent bank and the material^{documents placed on record.}

¶23

The points for consideration are as^follows : -

¶24

i) whether the applicant made out any^{valid ground to} quash the measures of the respondent against the SA schedule ProPertY, as PraYed^for?

¶25

ii) To what relief?

¶26

Point No.(i):

¶27

The applicant admits of availing^{credit facility} of^{Rs.3.70 crores} from the respondent bank against mortgage of^{application schedule} property. The respondent bank filed copies of demand'notice and possession notice. As per the notices, the applicant firm availed three

fuun$

Page 3 of 3

SA No.02l2024

loans viz., two Overdraft^{loans and ECLGS. Demand notice indicates} date of NPA as 27.04.2023.^{Since the demand notice was returned} unserved, the same was served^{by way of paper publicationand} affixture. The^{possessionnotice} dated^{05.10.2023 was also sent by} post, published on 11.10.2023 in English and^{Telugunewspapersand} affixed on secured asset.^{I find no deviation in the procedure followed} by the respondent bank.^{The respondent bank being secured creditor} is entitled under Sec.14 of the^{Act, 2002 to obtain Warrantappointing} advocate commissioner for taking^{physical possessionof the secured} asset. I find no illegality^{in such action of respondent bank'}

¶32

It is concluded that the applicant^{failed to make out any valid} ground to set aside the measures under Secs'13(2) and^{13(4) of the} Act and the action to take^{physical possessionof the SA schedule} property. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

Point No.(ii):

¶34

In the result, the Securitization^{Applicationfails and is hereby} dismissed.

¶35

Consequently, the Interlocutory^{Applicationspending, if any,} shall stand closed. No order^{as to costs. Communicatea copy of this} order to the^parties concerned^{and uploadin the officialwebsite.}

¶36

(Typed to my dictotion by the PS, corrected, signed ond^{pronouncedby mein the opencourt on this} the 2d doy of nugust, 2025).

¶37

Ss'q HWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M/s.Asmr Constructions, and another v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/s.Asmr Constructions, and another v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Vasundheara Opticals

Sampangi Mallesh versus Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.

Jude Vincent versus Piramal Capital

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Ozo Agri Care Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus M/S. Sri Nidhi Carbonic Gases

Axis Bank Ltd. versus White Water Enterprises