Dismissed

parameswarboilers v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT11 Sept 2025SA/304/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application by Parameswar Boilers seeking to quash a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The bank demonstrated compliance with the Act regarding NPA declaration, notice issuance, and publication, leading to the rejection of the application for setting aside the physical possession measures.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application and the claim to set aside the possession notice failed and were dismissed.

parameswarboilers versus Icici Bank Limited — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRTBUNAL_ II AT HYDEMBAD} DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF^{SEPTEMBER, 2025}

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.COM, L.LB.(HONS.),IY.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Securitization Application No.304^{OF 2024}

¶4

N4/s Parameswar Boilers Rep by its Prop. Munnuru Durga^Reddy S/o Late M. Yanadhi Reddy 63^years, Male, R/o H.No.9/38 Galivaripa lli Village Rajampet Mandal, Cuddapah -^{516 115}

¶5

.......Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

ICIC Bank Rep by its Authorized Omcer Rajampet Branch D.No.6-319/A, Railway Station^Road Rajampet, Cuddapah Andhra Pradesh 516 115

¶8

....Respondent.

¶9

Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. P. Narasimhulu

¶10

Counsel for Respondent : Mr.G. Adrian Kiran Raj

¶11

-:o_B_D_E_B:-

¶12

The Applicant filed the^present Securitisation^{Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitization and^{Reconstruction of FinancialAssetsand} Enforcement of Security Interest Act,^{2002 (hereinafter referredto as} "the Act;) to declare action of the respondent bank^{in takingphysical} possession of the application schedule^{propertypursuant} to^advocate commlssioner notice dated L0-07.2024 in Crl^{MP No.256of 2024 on} the file of learned Chief Judicial^{MagistrateCumPrincipalAssistant} Sessions Judge, Kadapa as null and void and^{set aside measures} under 13(4) of the Act, 2002.

¶13

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he availed OD^facility from the respondent bank against the mortgage olqpplicant schedule /.N..v* ul

¶14

Page 2 of3

¶15

sA No.3O4l2024

¶16

property as security. Due to huge financial loss in the business on account of Pandemic, he was unable to^pay monthly EMIS.^Without considering the request to regularize the account by^receiving overdue amount, respondent bank declared the account as NPA illegally and proceeded under the Act. Prior to advocate commissioner notice, demand notice,^possession notice were not served and possession notice was not published and affixed on the asset. Hence this SA.

¶17

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that due to default in repayment, the account became NPA as^per RBI^guidelines. Applicant never approached to regularize the account. The demand notice and possession notice were duly served on applicant, amxed on secured asset and published in English and Telugu newspapers. The outstanding amount is Rs.3,49,16,160/- and not Rs.1,32,77,70t/-. Application is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Both the learned counsel reported that order may be^passed based on records. Perused the same along with material documents placed on record.

¶19

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶20

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to quash Sec.13(4) notice and action to take physical possession of the SA schedule property, as prayed for?

¶21

il) To what relief?

¶22

Point No.(i)l

¶23

Admittedly the applicant availed OD facility and committed default in repayment on account of business losses. The respondent bank filed documents along with reply sta-tement as^proof of k''

¶24

Page 3 of 3

¶25

sA No.304/2024

¶26

compliance of Secs.13(2), 13(4) of the Act and Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules, 2OO2, in serving demand notice dated 06.04.2024, possession notice dated 08.07.2024, publication of the same in English and Telugu newspapers on 12.07.2024 and affixture of possession notice on schedule property. These documents are not disputed by the applicant. Sec.1,4 of the Act, 2002 is the^provision whereunder the respondent being secured creditor can approach concerned CMM/DM for appointment of advocate commissioner to take^{physicalpossession} of the secured asset and such action is legitimate.

¶27

It is concluded that the applicant has failed to make out any valid ground to set aside the possession notice issued under Sec.13(4) of the Act, 2002 and the action to take^{physical possession} of the SA schedule^property. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

Point No.(ii):

¶29