Dismissed

Mr Sikander Ali v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT6 Oct 2025SA/290/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act as infructuous because the respondents withdrew all notices issued against the schedule property, making the relief claimed unobjectable. The court directed the bank to follow SARFAESI procedures if initiating fresh notices.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as relief claimed becomes infructuous upon withdrawal of notices; direction to follow SARFAESI procedure.

Mr Sikander Ali versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrS THE 6rH DAy OF OCTOBE& 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.29O OF 2024

¶4

Between :

¶5

Mr. Sikandaer Ali, S/o Mr. Mir Basith Ali,

¶6

Aged 55 years, male, flat no.E-3, Sm rith insha Apartments, H. No.10-5-39 tltO/7, Mithila Nagar, road no.12, Banjara hills, Hyderabad.

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1, The Authorised officer,

¶10

ICICI Bank Ltd,

¶11

ICICI Bank Towers, plot no.12, Nanakramguda, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

¶12

ICICI Bank Ltd,

¶13

Represented by its Chief manager
r,::
t zy''ii1t ;];
'^,t'"?,=:i l:yi?^? : :,' 'u&:<br>,lh
Hyderabad.
Respondents
*
0 [0[r 1(0\ *
a.!.,
-3
for the parties: -6 ^r. I
for ApplicantApplicant
"&g/

¶14

Counsel for the^parties:

¶15

Counsel for ApplicantApplicant

Respondents

Sri Adrian Kiran Raj

(sA.7eo/20241

ORDER

1' The Applicant filed thissecuritisation Application under section 17 of the securitisation and Reconstruction of Financiar Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Acr) challenging the steps initiated by the Respondents for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner in Crl.MP.No.3OS/2024 on the file of Hon,be VI Addl CMM, Nampaily under SARFAESI Act.

¶21

The averments made in the application in brief are as follows:

¶22

The applicant availed loan from the respondent bank and created mortgage in respect of schedule property. Subsequenfly the applicant courd not repay the roan amount so the respondent bank issued demand notice dated 24.06.2021 and applicant sent reply to the said demand notice. Thereafter without issuing any possession notice, the Respondent bank approached Hon,ble CMM, Nampally for appointment of Advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of schedure property. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by Hon,ble CMM issued notice dated 04.07.2024for taking physicar possession ofthe schedule property.

¶23

The Responden nt denying the allegations made in the 3A aod contended the respondent bank is .,^uEocrTnr 206 withdrawing notices issued r the SARFAESI Act with a liberty to able to be dismissed,

¶24

lsA.290/20241

¶25

Heard the arguments.

¶26

Now the point for consideration is

¶27

i) whether the sA becomes infructuous in view of withdrawing ail the notices issued by the Respondents under SARFAESI Act ?

¶28

ii) To What Reliep

¶29

Point no.i)

¶30

6' on 29.01.2015, the respondents fired a memo stating that after verification of records, the respondents are willing to withdraw the notices in order to initiate fresh proceedings. so the sA may be closed.

¶31

So in view of the withdrawal of all the notices issued by the
respondent bank under SARFAESI Act against the schedule property,
nothing survives in the sA for adjudication and so the sA is liable to
be dismissed as rerief craimed becomes infructuous. suffice if a
direction is given to the respondent bank to scrupurousry foflow the
procedure laid down in the S4B;EAFSLAc.t and Ruleslnade thereunder
in issuins the fresh nouxfS*"tneffiilt6fiDN this point is answered
'9'<br>accordingly. l' ' '+g";tgq)
tt*
: .- b Il I ?TIi ll:
Point n o.ii) o.ii) ii; !. i.;r i :lil:: ,., l 0 u E u iii [] ii irr ' ''] "' - ,i
! t . .,-..]]': : !'t:,'
. . ,. : . J ,/
7. In the result, SA.29O/20)/20 24 is dismissed. ,.
' |..,,'''....),j '' :;'"':
. --::.''

¶32

(sA.29O/20241

¶33

B. The Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed

¶34

of. No order as to costs.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dictated to the PA, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6h Oct, 2025)

¶37

sd/(c. GoPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

ffi<br>j nEocrtlr
.%,,
-r, .ii,
-iti[?111,
rror-ii,,''r,'
:
-..;.- .ii=":i;{'i""-.

¶39

Mr Sikander Ali v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Sikander Ali 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

State Bank of India versus Mr. Gujarlapudi Sateesh

Canara Bank versus M/S Revathi Textiles

Mr E Sudhakar versus Repco Bank

Mr Ajay Kumar Jogu versus Smfc India Home Finance Ltd.

Sri Chilakalapudi Seetha Rama Rao versus State Bank of India

Ms Shabbir and Sons versus Uco Bank