Allowed

Erumall Arlappa v. Icici Home Finance Company Limited

DRT4 Sept 2025SA/268/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Securitisation Application was filed by borrowers to quash physical possession measures by a secured creditor initiated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The creditor failed to file a reply or prove compliance with statutory notice requirements. The court dismissed the possession measures but allowed the creditors to proceed afresh following due process.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application allowed; measures initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property set aside; Respondent permitted to proceed afresh.

Erumall Arlappa versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY'TRIE}UNAL _ 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS TI_IE 4I' DAY OF SEPTEMBER ,2C25

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No.268 /2025

¶4

1 . Llrumalla Arlappa, S/o }lalasvvami Occ: Gov1.. employee

¶5

Smt.Erumalla anitha, W/o Ii. Arlappa, Occ:home maker Both arc R/o 11.No.5-5-187 ll'7O, Sarnbani Nagar, Khammam City & Disl rit.t Tclangr.r n a-5()700 l.

¶6

... Applicants

¶7

Tersus

¶8

ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized officer, 2nd floor, I)lot No.141, VDO,s colony, Gattaiah Centre, Khammam-So7O0 1

¶9

Counsel for tle Applicants Respondent

... Respondent

Si J.Jeeuan Exparte

QR]D E R

1 . The Applicants fiied the present Securitisation Apprication u/ s. 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2l challenging the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schcdule property thro te commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld . CJM, .No.4 / 2025 and to set asicle the

¶14

same as illcgal ry^sr* g^{lllsFP2fifi *} W--#'

¶15

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the^Applicants availed various loan faciiities from the Respondent^{by creating mortgage} against the schedule property. The Applicants are^{regularly paying the} loan instalments. Suddenly, oD 14.06.2025, one advocate commissioner along with some officers of Respondent^visitedthe schedule property and requested the Applicants to hand^{over the} physical possession of the sctredule property and gave a copy of^the possession notice dt.10.10.2024 issued by the Respondent. Without serving demand notice and possession notice, the Respondent^is straightawoy, trying to take physical possession of the schedule property without following due process of law. The impugned possession notice was neither published in two daily newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶16

¶17

Noticc scrvcd on thc llcsp<tndcnt, no rcpresentation and set exparte.

¶18

¶19

Heard Ld. Counsci lor thc Applicants.

¶20

Now the points that arise for consideraticln is

¶21

Wletter the Applicants haue established any ualid grounds for challeruging the measures initiated by the Respondent for taking physicalpossession of the schedule propertg?

¶22

iil To what relieJ?

¶23

fq-int^No.(il

¶24

The Applicants filed the present SA challenging the steps initiated by the Re spondcnt for taking physical possession of the schedule property mmissioner u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. invoked the SARFABSI proceedings against

¶25

f.'tne s iled to justify their action by filing Reply and ' t* orod .{pqffp al documents to prove that the Respondent

¶26

,'."1.+

¶27

'-,^{'-,t .,*fr} 1,1^, ;,r-1 'r '-^:..1 '

¶28

has strict.ly followed the provisions of SARFAESI^Act and^{Rules framed} thereunder in taking physical possession against the^{securedasset.} The Respondent has not evinced any interest in^{contestingthe matter} even after giving several opportunities and^{failed to lile their Reply and} material documents to disprove the allegations^of the^{Applicants. In the} absence of any material evidence to show that the^{Respondent has duly} complied with the mandated provisions of^{SARFAESI Act and Rules,} 2OO2 in proceeding u/s 14 of the Act, I^hold that^{the Applicants have} maclc a case for quashing the mcasures^{initiated by the Respondent} against the SA schedule^property under the^{provisionsof the SARFAESI} Act and Rules thereunder and as such, the^{SA is tiable to be allowed.}

¶29

Potnt No.lti):-

¶30

In the result, SA 268/25 is allowed by setting aside the^impugned measures initiated by the Respondent for taking^{physicalpossession of} t-hc schcdule propcrty through advocate commissioner^pursuant to the ordcrs of Ld.C.JM, Khammam in Crl.M.P.No.4l25. However, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed afresh against the SA schedule property to recover their dues by duly following the provisions of SAItlrAtlSI Act, 2OO2 and ltules thereunder.

¶31

The interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶32

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶33

to the Priuate Secrelary, transcribed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me rt on tlis the 4th dag of September, 2025).

¶34

t"
/. ,'
ii''
Ii ,*
0 4 SEP 2t[5

¶35

sd/ -

¶36

(G. GOPTCHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

Erumall Arlappa v. Icici Home Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Erumall Arlappa v. Icici Home Finance Company 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

Vaddalapu Rammohan versus State Bank of India

S Jayaram Chowdary versus State Bank of India

M Latha versus State Bank of India

Saraswathi Upender Raju and Another versus Aadhar Housing Finance Limited

Ms Vishal Saree Center versus Dcb Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Sri K.G.Surendranath Yadav