Dismissed

Ksr Enterprises and others v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT4 Nov 2025SA/204/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debt Recovery Tribunal application challenged the validity of eviction notices issued by ICICI Bank under the SARFAESI Act alleging lack of demand notice and compliance with rules. The Dibet Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application, upholding the notices as valid and legally issued. Proceeding with foreclosure. No order as to costs. Costs to parties. Judgment pronounced on November 4, 2025

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. Notices dated 18.05.2024 and 21.05.2024 upheld as valid. Pending interlocutory applications disposed of. No order as to costs.

Ksr Enterprises and others versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.204,/2e24

¶5

KSR Enterprises Rep. by its Prop. Ch.Koteswar Rao, Situated at H.No.Z -7 -22 I / 2, Mothe Road,Nagendra Nagar, Jagityal, Karimnagar-S}S 327.

¶6

Mr.Chadurrula Koteswar Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, aged 40 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.7-Z -221 / 2, Mothe Road,Nagendra Nagar, Jagityal, Karimnagar-S OS 322

¶7

Mr.Chaduvula Surya Narayana, S/o lae Ramulu, Aged 65 years, R/o H.No.7-7-22I 12, Mothe Road Nagendra Nagar, Jagitya_I, Karimnagar-S)S 322 ... Applicants

¶8

And

¶9

ICICI Bank Ltd.

¶10

Rep. by its Authorized officer

¶11

Situated at Plot No.24, South Ambattur Industrial Estate, Block No. 1, Ambattur, Chennai-600 O58 & Also at: D.No.7,4-264, Yawar Road, Opp.Blaji Balaji Nagar, Vani t l,iil,j ?ifi Jgityal-SO5 327. ... Respondent

¶12

Reserued on : 19.09.2025 Pronounced on : 04.1 1.2025 Uploaded on :07.1 1.2025

¶13

-:ORDER:-

¶14

This application is liled by the Applicants u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the^possession Notice dt.1g.0s.2o24 and also the vacate notice dt.21.05.2024 issued by the Respondent u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2oo2 for taking possession of the schedule properties and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶15

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶16

The Applicant No. I involved in the business of women hair trading and availed oD facility of Rs.7g lakhs from the Respondent and Applicants No.2&3 creating mortgage against the schedule properties as security for the said loan. Due to Covid-l9, the l"t Applicant could not pay some instalments and so, the Respondent declared the 10an account as NPA without following the RBI guidelines. The Respondent without serving demand notice issued possession notice to the Applicants and the said possession notice was not served on all the parties. Thereafter, the Respondent issued vacate Notice dt.21.0s.2o24 for taking physical possession of the schedule properties which is legal The impugned possession notice was not affixed on the schedule properties and not published in two leading newspapers. The Applicants are ready to regolarize the loan account by clearing the overdue amount. Hence the SA.

¶17

The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the sA and contended that the Respondent sanctioned over Draft facility.olRsJ$.lakhs against the mortgage in respect of the schedulg.lifqpprties;:"gf{ei"'..4vailing loan from the Respondent, the 1st repaying the loan dues and so, the loan as per the guidelines of RBL The pjtent[s3u,i,$iEff?5nd --qqtlle^{at.zo. r 2.2023to the Applicantsand} ne \A/aS 'English and Telugu daily newspapers. i2

¶18

Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.1g.O 5.2024 and the said notice was published in two leading newspapers. Thereafter, the Respondent issued notice dt.2 1 .0 5 .2024 to the Applicants to vacate the schedule properties. Thus, all the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking possession of the schedule properties u/ s l3(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 are as per the procedure prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereudner. Accordingly, the Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶19

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and t d. Counsel for the Respondent and perused the material brought on record.

¶20

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶21

i. uheth.er tle Applicants haue establisLed ang ualid grounds for challenging the Possession Notice dt.18.O5.2O24 and Vacate Notice dt.21.O5.2O24 issued by tlrc Respondent for taking possession o/the scledule properties?

¶22

ii. To uthat relief ?

¶23

Potnt IVo.(tl:-

¶24

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

¶25

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the lst Applicant availed loan from the plicants No.2&3 created mortgage in respect security for the said loan and default in repaying the loan dues

¶26

as NPA.

¶27

The specific contention of the Applicants is that without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants and without complying with Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, the Respondent issued vacate Notice dt.21.0s.2o24 for taking possession of the schedule properties u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and so, the said steps are not legal and valid.

¶28

Per contra, Respondent contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants.

¶29

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent enclosed relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said material documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.26.12.2o23 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicants through Regd. Post and the said notice is received by the Applicants as evidenced by the postal acknowledgments filed by the Respondent. In fact, the Respondent also published the said notice in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication liled by the Respondent. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicants. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt. 18.05.2024 u/s 13(4) of the Act, 2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicants through Regd. Post as evidenced by postal track reports Iiled by the Bank. In fact, the Applicants filed copy of the said notice along with the SA filed by them. The said possession notice was published in daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule

¶30

in the copy of photograph liled by the Respondent. ,duly^{followed Rule 8(1)&(2)of Security Interest} es,2'dg\ i""rirg possession notice to the Applicants.

¶31

ilotl 2m I .) 4

¶32

After issuing possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2oo2, the Authorized officer of the Respondent issued vacate Notice dt.2l.0 s.2o24 to the Applicants for vacating the schedure properties. However, the said notice is issued by the Authorized Officer of the Respondent u/s 13(4) of the SARFAEST Act, 2oo2 and it is not the notice issued u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule properties. So, the impugned possession notice dt.1g.o 5.2024 and vacate Notice dt.21.05.2024 are perfectly regal and valid and binding on the Applicants.

¶33

t2. so, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicants are not entitled to any relief. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunar with the possession notice dt.1g.05.2024 and vacate notice dt.2r.o5.2o24 issued by the Respondent u/s r3(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 for taking possession of the schedure properties. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicants.

¶34

Potnt No.(tl)r

¶35

In the result, sA 2o412024 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶36

consequently, the Interlocutory Apprications, pending if any, shan stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶37

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶38

e P.S trat Lscribul signed. and proraunced. bV me ift the open court on this the 4h daV
0 { il0t/ z[fi sdl-
TR-IJPGOPY (c. coPr cHArrD)
,- s/- a y__/u_ PRESIDING OFFICER
'*6:${

Ksr Enterprises and others v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ksr Enterprises and others 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

Martha Rajabhadraiah versus Union Bank of India

Smt. Nirupama versus Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited

Ms Discount Pharmacy versus Indian Bank

Srinivasa Enterprises and others versus Icici Bank Limited

Sharvani Industries versus Union Bank of India

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. Gandhe Srinivas