Dismissed

Bhuvanagiri Naveen Kumar v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT15 Oct 2025SA/48/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought to set aside a bank's possession notice under the SARFAESI Act, claiming ownership via a later personal decree. The Tribunal held the bank's prior mortgage rights prevailed over the subsequent decree holder's attachment, dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed with consequential closure of pending interlocutory applications and no order as to costs.

Bhuvanagiri Naveen Kumar versus Icici Bank Limited — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL -^{II AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER,²⁰²⁵

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No.48^{OF 2O24}

¶5

Bhuvanagiri Naveen Kumar S/o Bhuvanagiri Subbarao Aged 45 years, Occ: Business, Gender:Male PJo Near Ramalayam, Nehru^nagar Guntur, Guntru District,^{AndhraPradesh}

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

ICICI Bank Limited Rep by its Authorized Offlcer Tirupathi Branch, Tirupathi⁵¹⁷⁵⁰¹

¶9

GudalaVenkatachalam

¶10

S/o Rosaiah, Hindu

¶11

Aged 56^years, R/o D.No.18-1-720J Bhavani Nagar, SivalaYam Street Tirupathi, Chittoor^{District, AndhraPradesh}

¶12

....Respondents.

¶13

Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. T. VUay Kumar

¶14

Counsel for 1't Respondent : Mr. G. Adrian Kiran^Raj

¶15

-: (L-B-D-E.B:.

¶16

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 set aside the^{possessionnotice dated04.07.2024} against the application^{scheduleproperty.}

¶17

The case of the applicant,^{in brief, is that he is a third party and} 2nd respondent is the absolute^{owner and possessorof the schedule} property. The applicant gave loan to 2nd^{respondentundera} promissory note and due to non-clearance of^{the same, he filed civil} suit being OS No.164/2023^{beforethe tearned Senior Civil Judge at}

lN,l.e

Page 2 of3

5A No.iA/2024

Guntur for recovery of money, obtained decree in his favour on 76.17.2023 tot Rs.20,48,7 60/-, subsequenfly got attached the subject property and filed EP for proclamation of sale which is under process. While so, the 1st respondent published possession notice dated 04.01.2024 on the ground that that 2nd respondent,s account became NPA. Being decree holder, applicant has not been served with any notice. The possession notice is void in law. Hence this SA.

¶22

The 1st respondent filed reply statement stating, inter atia,lhat the 2nd respondent availed loan against mortgage of schedule property. Consequent upon default in repayment, his account became NPA and respondent bank initiated Securitization measures by issuing demand notice u/s 13(2) followed by possession notice u/s 13(4) and also crl.MP No.535 of 2023 u/s 14 of the Act,2oo2 for taking physicat possesslon of the secured asset. The 2nd respondent availed loan in 2018 and mortgaged the property being owner of the same. The respondent bank is not made party in OS No.106/2023. The applicant being third party and having filed and obtained decree much later cannot claim right over the property. SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

Representative learned counsel for the applicant reported no oral arguments. Perused the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the 1't respondent bank and the material documents placed on record.

¶24

I have considered the contents of the application along with documents, reply statement and written arguments filed by the respondent bank. A perusal of the same conflrms that the mortgage was created in 2018 against mortgage of the application schedule property. Whereas, the loan given by the applicant to 2nd respondent is not based on mortgage of the subject property. In fact, by the time applicant filed OS in 2023, the iaccount nad declared as

2ffi-9.F

Page 3 of 3

SA N0.48/2024

NPA and demand notice^{under Sec'13(2)of the Act, 2002 had also} been issued in respect^{of application scheduleproperty. The applicant} filed the present Securitization^{Application basingon a personal} decree dated 16.11.2023^{passedin OS No.164/2023againstthe 2nd} respondent who availed^{personalloan from the applicant undera} promissory note. According to applicant, the^{subject propertyhas} been attached by the^{learned Civil Court on L2.t0.2023 and EP is} under^process. It is settled^{law that the subsequentattachment of} property would not defeat the^prior mortgage^{rights of the 1st} respondent bank.

¶29

In view of the above^{observations,it is concluded that the} applicant failed to^{establish any right over the applicationschedule} property prior to the date of mortgage^{and initiation of securitization} proceedings. Accordingly, SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

In the result, the^{Securitization Applicationfails and is hereby} dismissed.

¶31

Consequently, the Interlocutory^{Applicationspending, if any,} shall stand closed.

¶32

No order as to costs'

¶33

Communicate^{a copy of this orderto the partiesconcernedand} upload in the official^website.

¶34

(Typed to my dictotion by the^PS, corrected,^{signed and pronouncedby mein the opencourt on this} the 15h doy of October,^2025).

¶35

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bhuvanagiri Naveen Kumar v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuvanagiri Naveen Kumar 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

Similar cases

Ms Sree R Enterprises Rep by its Prop Naveen kumar versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Shashikanth Badri Meenaiah

Bank of India versus Sri Adepu Varun Kumar, S/O Adepu Rajaram

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Royal General Contractors Private Limited

Mr Gandi Bhargav Goud versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

chitha mallikarjuna versus 22