Dismissed

Domala Srinivas v. Icici Home Finance Company Limited

DRT29 Jul 2025SA/431/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to set aside possession measures by a financial institution. The court rejected the claim of procedural irregularity in service of notice and finding of NPA, upholding the recovery action under the Securitization Act.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application failed and is dismissed; interlocutory applications stand closed.

Domala Srinivas versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF ]ULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH, RAMESHWAR KOTHE. B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No.431 OF 2024

¶5

Sri Domala Srinivas Male, Occ:Business R/o H. No.8-7- 16/148 Plot No.32, Survey No.156/2 Mailardevpally, Hyderabad-500077

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s ICICI Home Financial Company Limited Having its Registered Office at "Landmark" Race Course Circle Vadora - 390007 and Having its Corporate Office at ICICI Bank Towers Badra - Kurla Complex, Badra (East) Having its Branch Office at Hyderabad and rep by its Authorized Officer

¶9

....Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr.Mukesh Sharma

¶11

Counsel for Respondent : Mr. M. Srinivas Reddy

¶12

-:ORDER:-

¶13

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to set aside all the measures of the respondent under Sec.13(2), 13(4) of the Act r/w Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter "Rules") including the action in taking^{physicalpossession} of the application schedule^property on 19.09.2024 in pursuance of Warrant in Crl.MP No.315 of 2024 on the file of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga^{Reddy District} and consequently redeliver the schedule^pop"rq(fS*q

¶14

Page 2 of4

¶15

5A No.431/2024

¶16

The case of the applicant, in^{brief, is that he availed home loan} of Rs.20 lakhs in 2021 by^{mortgaging the applicationschedule} property as security. Although applicant had^{been paylngamounts} regularly, respondent issued^{possessionnotice dated 06.07.2023} without serving Sec.13(2)^{demand notice. The possessionnotice was} not affixed on secured asset as^{requiredunder Rule 8(1) and not} published in two leading newspapers as^per Rule^{8(2) of 2002.} Without serving 15 days^{notice, the advocate commissioner took} physical possession of the application schedule^{property by obtaining} warrant in crl MP No.315 of^{2024 ffom learnedcMM,RangaReddy} District. The action of^{respondentu/s 14 is arbitraryand illegal.} Hence this SA.

¶17

The respondent bank filed^{replystatementalongwith} documents. The submissions,^{briefly, are that the loan accountof the} applicant became NPA on 09.04.2023^{followed by issuance of demand} notice u/s 13(2) of the Act. the^{possessionnoticedated06.07.2023} was^personally served on applicant^{and publishedon 11'07.2023 and} affixed on the^property. Initially^{warrant was obtained on Crl MP} 33A/2023, as the applicant agreed to^{normalize or settle the account} it was not executed and expired. Thereafter another^CrlMP No.375/2O24 was filed, Warrant issued and in execution^of the^same advocate commissioner issued 15 days notice on^{24.07.2024and} handed over physical^possession to the respondent on 09.09.2024ⁱⁿ the presence of the applicant and his family members.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material brought on record. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the version as in the application that though the payment was being regularly made, the respondent directly issued possession without serving demand notice, the Ao'session notice was (/ffe

¶19

Page 3 of4

¶20

sA No.431/2024

¶21

not alfixed on secured asset and not published in two leading newspapers within seven days thereby violated Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules, 2002. The application u/s 14 was filed by suppressing facts, without issuing notice advocate commissioner took^physical possession. He contended that such action is illegal and null and void and hence entire action of the respect is liable to be set aside and consequently redelivery of the application schedule^{property be} ordered in the interest of^justice.

¶22

Per contra, Iearned counsel for the respondent while referring to the documents placed on record would submit that the^loan account was classified as NPA on 09.04.2023, the demand notice^was delivered to the applicant vide^postal track report. The^possession notice was served, affixed and^published. As the applicant agreed for regularization or settlement of account, the^previous warrant was^not executed. Due to failure in adhering to the commitment,^respondent filed fresh application u/s 14 and obtained Warrant. The^advocate commissioner served vacate notice of 15 days to wife of the applicant and co-applicant Smt.Domala lYadhavi and took^{physical possession} on 09.09.2024 in the^presence of the apPlicant and his^family members. There is no irregularity or illegality in the action of^the respondent and therefore the SA is liable to be dismissed. 7. Now, the^points for consideration are as follows : -

¶23

i) Whether the applicant made out any^{valid ground to} quash any of the measures initiated by the respondent against the SA schedule Pro?ertY?

¶24

ii) To what relieq

¶25

Point No,(i):

¶26

Admittedly the applicant availed^{housingloan of Rs.20lakhs} agalnst mortgage of application^{schedule property. The statement of} account as at pages 78-89 of material^{documel0[sfiled, by the} (lwr'"'

¶27

Page 4 of 4

¶28

SA No.431/2024

¶29

respondent would reflect irregularity^{in repayment'Hence contention} that account was illegally classified^{as NPA is not acceptable.Similarly} documents as at^pages 44-68^{sufficientlyprove service of demand} notice,^possession notice, affixture and^{publication of possession} notice. I find no violation of Secs.13(2)^{and 13(4) of the Act, 2OO2 or} Rules 8(1) and B(2) of 2002. 9. Photographs and documents at^pages 7t'77^{annexedto the} reply statement clearly establish that the advocate^commissioner served 15 days notice on wife of the applicant^{who is also co-} applicant, had taken and^handed over^{physicalpossessionof the} secured asset to the respondent under^{Panchanama. Accordingto} respondent, the applicant and his family^{members were also present} at the time of taking^{physicalpossession} of^{the asset' Ifind} absolutely no illegality in taking the^{physical possessionunderthe} provision of Sec.14 of the Act, 2002.

¶30

10, In view of the above observations, I find that^{the applicant} failed to make out any valid^ground either to set^aside any^{of the} measures of the respondent against the SA^{schedule property} or^for its redelivery. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

Point No.(ii):

¶32

In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby dismissed. t2. Consequently, Interlocutory Applications^pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶33

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶34

(Typed to my dictotion by the PS, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me the 2gth doy of.tuty,2025).

¶35

open court on this

¶36

S6-r'rltr'

¶37

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Domala Srinivas v. Icici Home Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Domala Srinivas 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

Sri Vijaya Lakshmi versus Union Bank of India

Moru Pushpa versus Union Bank of India

M/S. Canara Bank versus M/S. Mamatha Dairy (Sole Proprietory Firm)

Ravi Kanth Durgam versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Sun Shine Steel Industries versus Indian Bank

M.Thirupathi Reddy versus Phoenix Arc Private Limited