Disposed

R Rajalakshmi v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT29 Aug 2025SA/513/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal addressed a registry objection regarding a 33-day limitation delay in filing the SA. The applicant, a third party with a claimed life interest, argued she lacked knowledge of the proceedings until rough-and-ready eviction occurred. The Presiding Officer accepted a prima facie case that independent third parties need not be directly served s

What did the court decide?

Registry directed to number the SA leaving the question of limitation to be decided at the time of final hearing.

R Rajalakshmi versus Icici Bank Limited — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this the 29^th day of August, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY Presiding Officer

¶4

NDN (SA) No.1171 of 2025

¶5

Mrs. R. Rajalakshmi W/o Late Mr. A. Radhakrishnan New No.54, Old No.35, 48^th Street Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083

¶6

…Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

ICICI Home Finance Chennai Branch No. AB106, Old No.134, 2^nd Floor 4^th Avenue, Shanthi Colony Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040 Represented by its Authorised Officer Mr. Kamalesh Kumar

¶9

…Respondent

¶10

Counsels on Record / Appeared

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s A. Ramaswamy & A. Ramesh Babu Counsel for Respondent : M/s N.S. Sivakumar & K. Kishore Kumar

¶12

ORDERS ON OBJECTION OF THE REGISTRY WITH REGARD TO LIMITATION

¶13

This case is placed before the Tribunal for deciding on the question of

¶14

maintainability – delay of 33 days in filing the SA.

¶15

The Registry has raised the following objection: -

¶16

“Registry’s sought for clarification regarding SA filed with delay of 33 days. Hence, COD petition along with fees has to be filed.”

¶17

The applicant resubmitted with following endorsement: -

¶18

“ The applicant is a third party and hence never received any statutory notice from the Defendant Bank for the

¶19

¶20

SARFAESI proceeding nor aware of the order of the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore dated 16.04.2025 until 26.06.2025 when 10-15 persons barged into the house of the Applicant and thrown her out. Immediately the applicant filed a police complaint against those persons who thrown her out. Only the applicant came to know about the order of the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore dated 16.04.2025. Therefore, the present SA is filed on 3/7/3035 immediately from the date of knowledge i.e., 26.06.2025 of the order of the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Therefore the limitation is calculated from 26.06.2025, the date on which the Applicant came to know about the order of the Learned CMM. Hence the S.A. is filed within the Limitation period.”

¶21

The present SA is filed by the applicant challenging the measures initiated by the defendant pursuant to the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in Crl. M.P. No.3372 of 2025 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶22

The Registry has raised an objection regarding limitation, noting a delay of 33 days in filing the application from the date of the impugned order.

¶23

Version of the Applicant

¶24

The applicant contends that she is neither a borrower nor a guarantor and is only third party to the loan transaction. It is stated that her husband Mr. Radhakrishnan executed a settlement deed dated 04.05.2021 in favour of his grandson Master N. Ramnath and the same is registered as Doc. No.1433 of 2021, on the file of SRO, Ashok Nagar. It is also stated that in the said settlement deed, life interest has been given to the settler, his wife and son. It

¶25

is further stated that her husband executed a General Power of Attorney in

¶26

¶27

favour of one Mr. G. Raja vide Doc. No.1516/2023 dated 08.05.2023 on the file of SRO, Ashok Nagar and the said Mr. G. Raja has sold the property to one Mr. Surender vide Sale deed dated 1637/2023, SRO, Ashok Nagar, who is the borrower in the loan transaction. It is further stated that her husband expired and she is residing in a small portion of the property.

¶28

It is stated that on 30.06.2025, around 10-15 persons claiming themselves from the defendant bank suddenly barged into the house and thrown her out saying that they have taken possession of the property. It is stated that the applicant is 86 years old and the defendant despite request did not allow to taken her medicines and locked the schedule property and sealed it. It is also stated that the applicant is now residing in the servant room.

¶29

It is stated that the applicant is never aware of the action initiated by the respondent under SARFAESI Act and no notice is either served or affixed on the secured asset and she came to know of the order of the Ld. CMM, Egmore dated 16.04.2025 only on 26.06.2025 when 10 to 15 persons barged into the house of the applicant and thrown her out. It is also stated that the SA is filed within the period of limitation from the date of knowledge.

¶30

Version of the defendant

¶31

The SA is not maintainable both on facts and in law. The applicant is a third party and she has preferred this application only with a view to stall the statutory measures with an intention to delay and defeat the recovery

¶32

¶33

measures taken by the respondent and therefore it is liable to be dismissed in limine.

¶34

It is stated that the respondent has strictly complied with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder. The present SA is filed at the instigation of the borrower, who did not choose to challenge any of the measures of the respondent under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. It is stated that the SA is filed only to frustrate the SARFAESI measures and to prevent the bank officials from executing the order passed in Crl. M.P. No.3372/2025 passed by Ld. CMM, Egmore and complete the process. It is also stated that the borrower has set up the vendor’s family to frustrate the recovery proceedings.

¶35

It is stated that the applicant being third party to the loan transaction is not entitled to any of the notices. It is stated that the demand notice dated 15.04.2024 was duly served on the borrower, the first possession notice dated 10.07.2024 was duly served on the borrower, affixed on the secured asset and published in newspapers. It is also stated that the 2^nd Possession Notice dated 06.11.2024 was also duly served, affixed on the secured asset and published in newspapers. Therefore, the applicant claiming to be residing in the secured asset cannot feign ignorance of the statutory notices issued by the defendant and she was very well aware of the proceedings initiated by the Respondent under SARFAESI Act and prayed for dismissing the SA.

¶36

¶37

Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of both sides. Perused the records.

¶38

Under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, a SA is to be filed within 45 days from the date on which such measures had been taken.

¶39

In the instant case, the applicant submits that she has no knowledge of the SARFAESI proceedings or of the order of the Ld. CMM, Egmore dated 16.04.2025 and she came to know of the same only on 16.06.2025 when the representatives of the respondent barged into her house and thrown her out of the property and the SA has been filed shortly thereafter.

¶40

On the other hand, the defendant submits that the application is motivated, filed at the instance of the borrower and is an abuse of process of law. The defendant contends that all statutory provisions under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder have been duly complied with, It is stated that the demand notice dated 15.04.2024 is served on the borrower and the Possession notices dated 10.07.2024 and 06.11.2024 have been duly served on the borrower, affixed on the secured asset and published in newspapers and therefore the applicant cannot feign ignorance of the actions taken by the defendant under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act prior to 16.06.2025 and therefore the version of the applicant that she came to know of the proceedings only on 16.06.2025 are utter falsehood. The defendant

¶41

also contends that the applicant has not adduced any sufficient cause or reason to explain the delay in approaching this Tribunal.

¶42

¶43

There is no statutory requirement to serve notices directly upon persons who claim independent third party interests, such as the applicant who asserts a life estate and mere publication and affixture of notices meant for the borrower cannot in law be deemed to constitute notice upon the applicant. Further, given her age and status as a non-party to the loan transaction, the version that she came to know of the possession action only when representatives of the respondent visited the property on 16.06.2025 is not inherently improbable.

¶44

This Tribunal, therefore, finds a prima facie case in the submission of the applicant and hence the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

Registry is directed to number the SA leaving open the question of limitation to be decided at the time of final hearing.

¶47

Sd/- (SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶48

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 29^th day of August, 2025)

¶49

R Rajalakshmi v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Rajalakshmi 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

M/s. Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. P. Ragupathy

M/s. Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. S. Rajasekaran

State Bank of India versus D. Manikandan

Indian Bank versus Sri Ganesh Builders and Promoters

M S Reashma Cell Phone Sales and Services versus Indian Bank

Ms Om Sree Mathaji Engineers versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)