The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed a securities application seeking to set aside the bank's action of taking physical possession. The court found the applicants' claims unsubstantiated and noted procedural compliance regarding the issuance of notices by the respondent bank.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THEDEBTSRECOVERY TRIBUNAL_ II AT HYDERABAD
DATEDTHIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST'2025
PRESENr:sH. RAMESHWART[ZtSrtirtC:it'L LB (Hons)' M A'
SecuritizatlonApplicationNo 345 OF 2022
1 M/s Avenir PowerTechnologiesPvt Ltd n"-i,. PartnerSrinivas Pathuri
"ll i',r.il".i-i+ela,1st FIoor' H P Road ilri"."'oo'o!*'"iiairoit' H P Road 2nd left
Hyderabad-500018
HYderabad-500018
Versus
M/s ICICIbank Ltd ICICI BankTowers Plot No. 12,Nanakramguda Gachibowli,HYderabad-32
... ResPondent
counselfor the Appticants : Mr' G'L' PrasadaRao ZZ"uiir-J,r i,iiitpondentBank : Mr' s'NageshReddv
-:ORDER:-
Page 2 of3
RBI su bsta ntia directives. r pa yment, No recall respondent noti decra red the "...r". ".ti:;'"tt:;:: was issued prior to that. Respondent got signed on blank formats It charged excessive rate of interest' without serving the deman( possession notice dated ,r.' 'ot'tuu/s 73(2) 'respondent issued ::::o,",.unaer secs.r 3(z ;'i;i]f";"j11.::: Iffi :i, fl:: 8(2) of the Security Interes t (Enforcement) Rules' 2992 1"q,1".' hereinafter). Hence this sA.
ii) To what retief.?
Point No.(i):
Page 3 of3
SA No.345/2022
As far asdemandnotice and possessionnotice are concerned' 8, the respondentbank filed materialdocuments along with reply statementshowing dispatch of demand notice to the correct address of the applicantsbesides publicationof the same in Englishand Telugu newspapers.Admittedly the causeof action in filing the SA is issuance ofpossession notice' The possessionnoticewas published and affixedon secured asset' Ifind no infractionof relevant provisions underSec,13(2),13(4) read with Rules8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules,2002, Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed'
Point No.(ii):
(Typed to my dictotionby thePS,corrected, signed ondpronounced by mein the opencourt on this the z6'h dayof August, 2025).
$*'oo SHWARKOTHE) PRESIDINGOFFICER
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the seizure of possession under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was lawful and procedural compliance was met.
Whether the demand notice and possession notice were validly issued and dispatched.
Whether the averments regarding non-compliance and unverified accounts are tenable.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s ICICI Bank Ltd
Sh. Rameshwar Kothe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
