Dismissed

Ganesan Paranthaman v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT8 Jan 2026SA/100/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging the Respondent Bank's possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The court found that the bank strictly complied with statutory notice provisions, publication requirements, and affixture procedures, validating the enforcement action.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed with the interim order, if any, standing vacated.

Ganesan Paranthaman versus Icici Bank Limited — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

SA No.100/2023

08.01.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 08^th day of January, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 100 of 2023

¶8

Mr. Ganesan Paranthaman S/o. Mr. Paranthaman, No.71/1 First Floor 2^nd Cross Street, Sathiya Nagar, Padi, Chennai – 600050. ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

The Authorised Officer ICICI Bank Ltd., Arihant Insight, Plot No.24, Block No.1, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Tiruvallur – 600 058. …Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. S. Vennila Counsel for Respondent : M/s. S. Suresh

¶13

ORDER ON SA No. 100/2023

¶14

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 18.02.2023 under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of

¶15

Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short the ‘Act’) challenging the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

SA No.100/2023

08.01.2026

The applicant has filed the present SA challenging the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 06.02.2023 and the outstanding amount due as per Possession Notice is Rs.1,16,15,869/-

¶20

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶21

The Applicant is the Guarantor and mortgaged the property towards the Over Draft facility and other loan availed by the borrower from the Respondent Bank. It is contended that the borrower paid the installments upto January 2021 without any default, subsequently defaulted in the repayment resulting in classification of the account as NPA as per the RBI guidelines.

¶22

3.1 The Respondent issued the Demand Notice dated 12.07.2021 to the borrower and then the applicant along with the borrower approached the bank and got NOC for release of the applicant’s property on payment of Rs.62 Lakh on or before 30.03.2022. However, the borrower could not comply with the payment and failed to release the applicant’s property.

¶23

3.2 The applicant received the Possession Notice dated 06.02.2023 intimating to take physical possession of the property. However, the applicant is in actual possession. It is contented that the classification of the account as NPA is not in accordance with the RBI guidelines and the bank has no authority to enforce the security. Pursuant to the Possession Notice dated 06.02.2023 the respondent may take forcible possession and hence, has filed the present SA.

SA No.100/2023

08.01.2026

3.3 It is contended that the amount is not crystallized and the Sec. 13(2) Demand Notice was not served which infringes the right under Section 13(3-A). The bank has issued the Possession Notice which is not delivered and without giving any proper Identification and measurement of the property. Hence prays to set aside the Possession Notice dated 06.02.2023.

¶28

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶29

The Respondent Bank in the counter contents that the present SA is filed a physical possession of the property which belonging Mrs. C. Tasneem Kouser. It is the case of the bank that Mr. Mohammed Zahir Hussain. B proprietor of M/s. Ayshas Exports is the borrower had approached the bank in the month of August 2019 requesting for the Working Capital Facility to limit of Rs.1,10,00,000/-. At the request of the borrower an Over Draft Facility vide Credit Arrangement Letter dated 29.08.2019 to limit of Rs.1,10,00,000/- was sanctioned to be repaid in 12 monthly installments with the prevailing interest rate @9.71% p.a. The validity of the Working Capital was 12 months from the date of sanction.

¶30

4.1 The borrower and guarantor availed the credit facilities as per Credit Facility Arrangement and Mrs. Tasneem Kouser C. mortgaged the property by Deposit of Title Deeds dated 17.09.2019 deposited registered as Document No.7998 of 2019 and executed the memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 20.09.2019 registered as Document No.13888 of

SA No.100/2023

08.01.2026

2019 in the office of SRO, Ambattur. The said credit facilities were extended for Renewal credit Arrangement Letter dated 14.10.2020 which is acknowledged by the Borrower and the Guarantor. The borrower utilized the entire facility and became highly irregular in the repayment and also failed to pay the principal or the interest on the due dates.

¶35

4.2 Further due to irregular credit and Debit entries and non-submission of Financial Report, Balance sheet, Audit Report and Projection of the business for the current year. Hence, the loan account was classified as NPA on 30.11.2020.

¶36

4.3 It is contended that the recall notice dated 24.05.2021 was issued which evoked no response. Hence the bank issued the Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 12.07.2021 to the borrower and the Guarantor calling upon them to pay an amount of Rs.1,16,15,869/- on 31.05.2021 within 60 days. The notice sent to few addresses were returned; hence the bank has affixed the Section 13(2) Demand Notice on the conspicuous place of the security asset on 01.01.2022.

¶37

4.4 Further the Demand Notice is also published in the two News Paper one in “The New Indian Express” English and another one in “Dinamani” Tamil. The Guarantor and Mortgagor failed to settle the loan account, the respondent took possession of the property by issuing the Section 13(4) Possession Notice on 21.03.2022. The said Possession Notice is published in the two daily newspaper on 25.03.2022 and 08.04.2022 by following the due procedures under the SARFAESAI Act.

SA No.100/2023

08.01.2026

4.5 Though the applicant approached several times to settle the liabilities however failed to settle the matter. The bank as filed Section 14 in C.M.P. No.8268/2022 on the file of the CJM at Chengalpet to take physical possession of the secured asset in respect of Tasneem Kouser.C. The Hon’ble Court by its order dated 05.09.2022 was pleased to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset.

¶42

4.6 It seen that it is clear admission made by the applicant with regard to service of the notice under section 13(2) demand notice dated 12.07.2021, thereafter the applicant and borrower approached the bank in respect of discharge of his guarantee and has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.62 Lakhs on or before 30.03.2022 is absolutely false that only one day was given by the respondent bank.

¶43

4.7 After receipt of under Sec.13(2), the borrower and the applicant approached the respondent bank for settlement and bank on August 2021 gave an offer to pay 20% of the outstanding amount but borrower nor the applicant made the amount of 20% but again requested the bank to consider the proposal of One-time settlement.

¶44

4.8 Though the bank is ready to discharge the applicant’s secured asset on payment of Rs.62 Lakhs and gave time till 30.03.2022 and did not withdrew its offer of payment of 30.03.2022, the borrower vide letter dated 29.03.2022 sought time, hence the contention the respondent bank has given only one day is a false statement.

SA No.100/2023

08.01.2026

4.9 It is submitted that even after one year the applicant nor the borrower did not evince any interest or little interest to make the payment hence the bank has withdrawn the offer of discharge of mortgage of the applicant property.

¶49

4.10 There was no payment from month of February 2021 the borrower neither paid the interest nor come forward to settle the loan account even after the loan facility was withdrawn by the respondent bank and the facility is valid only for 12 months will be renewed only on adherence of the terms and condition of sanction. The applicant failed to submit the stock statement, Financial Report and Projection of the business of the customer for the next one year. Hence, the loan account was not renewed and loan was recalled by the respondent bank by its Loan recall notice and declared the loan account as NPA.

¶50

4.11 Further, the respondent bank has served the notice under section 13(2) and 13(4) to the applicant herein. After issuance of Sec.13(2) demand notice and this respondent has took possession of the asset on 31.03.2022 and 04.04.2022. Both the notices were served on the borrower, applicant and other guarantor/mortgagor, and affixed the possession notice on the conspicuous place of the secured asset and same was published widely in two daily leading newspapers and has complied with all the procedures properly.

¶51

4.12 The physical possession notice dated 06.02.2023 is in respect of the property belonged to other guarantor by name Tasneem Kouser.C and

SA No.100/2023

08.01.2026

applicant has no locus standi to question the same. Hence, the respondent bank prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶56

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of the case.

¶57

It is discernible from the records that M/s. Ayshas Exports represented by its Proprietor Mr. Mohammed Zakir Hussain B is the borrower had availed Over Draft outstanding amount due Rs.1,14,80,968.00/- vide Loan agreement 321605000404 and FITL outstanding amount due Rs.99,441.00 vide loan agreement No.321660000003 and FITL outstanding amount due Rs.34,669.00 vide loan agreement No.321660000005 and FITL outstanding amount due Rs.791.00 vide loan agreement No.321660000004 from the respondent and the applicant along with the Tasneem Kouser.C and Ganesan Paranthaman, Mohamed Hussain.B and the guarantors and applicant along with the mortgagor and had mortgaged the property as collateral security towards the credit facility.

¶58

5.1 To secure the credit facilities availed, applicant has executed the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 17.09.2019 by Mrs. Tasneem Kouser. C vide Doc.No.7998 of 2019 which is registered in the office of the Sub Registrar Neelankarai, which is produced at Pg.1-15 of counter. Subsequently applicant executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 20.09.2019 vide Doc.No.13888/2019 which is registered in the office of the Sub Registrar Ambattur, which is produced at Pg.16-26 of counter.

SA No.100/2023

08.01.2026

5.2 In fact the applicant does not dispute the availing of the facilities and the mortgage of the property including the default in the repayment. Due to continuous default in the repayment, the loan account of the applicant was classified as NPA on 30.11.2020.

¶63

5.3 The respondent had issued the Sec.13(2) Demand Notice dated 12.07.2021 claiming an amount of Rs.1,16,15,869/- due as on 31.05.2021 along with other charges. The respondent have sent the demand notice by Speed Post as per the dispatch proof produced at Pg.32-35 of counter. The Demand Notice is published in two newspapers one in English “The New Indian Express” and another one in Tamil “Dinamani” both dated 01.01.2022 as required under Rule 3(1) of the Security Interest Rules. Further, the Demand Notice is affixed on the conspicuous place of the property as per the photograph of affixture produced at Page No.38 to 41 of respondent bank’s typed set.

¶64

5.4 In spite of service of demand notice as the borrower and mortgagors did not repay the outstanding amount due nor raised any objection as required under S.13[3A], the respondent issued the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice on 21.03.2022, however neither Acknowledgement nor returned cover produced by bank. The Possession Notice is published in two newspapers one in English “The New Indian Express” and another one in Tamil “Dinamani” both dated 25.03.2022 and the Possession Notice is affixed on the conspicuous place of the property as per the photograph of affixture produced at Page No.45 and 46 of respondent bank’s typed set.

SA No.100/2023

08.01.2026

5.5 It seen that the Physical Possession notice dated 06.02.2023 issued Rule 8[1] is also issued to the borrower and guarantor which is sent by Speed Post as per dispatch proof produced at Pg.48, the Physical Possession Notice is published in two leading Newspapers one in English “The New Indian Express” and another one in Tamil “Dinamani” both dated 11.02.2023 and affixture of photographs are produced at pg.51 and 52.

¶69

5.6 Further the respondent bank filed Sec.14 in CMP.No.8268 of 2022 on the file of CJM, at Chengalpattu in order to take physical possession of the secured asset in respect of Tasneem Kouser.C. The Hon’ble Court by its order dated 05.09.2022 allowed the petition and the Order is produced at pg.53-58 of respondent bank.

¶70

5.7 Though the applicant has challenged the Sec.13(4) possession notice have not pointed out any illegalities in the measure taken by the bank in enforcing the security available to them. On the other hand, the respondent bank has established the due compliance of the procedures as contemplated under the Act in enforcing the security with supporting documents as required under the Act. Hence it is concluded that the Sec.13(2) Demand Notice dated 12.07.2021 and Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 21.03.2022 are valid notices issued by the secured creditor as per the procedure as described under the Act and rules made there under.

SA No.100/2023

08.01.2026

5.8 For the foregoing reasons, the present SA is dismissed. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost. Sd/-

¶75

(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶76

(Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 08^th day of January, 2026)

¶77

ANNEXURES

¶78

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶79

Sl.	Description of Documents	Document
No.		No.
1.	Letter issued by the respondent dated	A-1
	29.03.2022.
2.	Possession Notice dated 06.02.2023.	A-2

¶80

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶81

Sl.	Description of Documents	Document
No.		No.
1.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds by Mrs. Tasneem Kouser. C with the Respondent Bank dated 17.09.2019.	R-1
2.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds by the Applicant with the Respondent Bank dated 20.09.2019.	R-2
3.	Notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2002 with dispatch proof dated 12.07.2021.	R-3
4.	Notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 caused in two leading News Papers ‘The New Indian Express’ and ‘Dinamani’ dated 01.01.2022.	R-4
5.	Photograph Affixture of Notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.	R-5
6.	Possession Notice under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 with dispatch proof dated 21.03.2022.	R-6
7.	Possession Notice under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 caused in two leading News Papers ‘The New Indian Express’ and ‘Dinamani’ dated 25.03.2022.	R-7
8.	Photograph Affixture of Possession Notice under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002	R-8

SA No.100/2023

08.01.2026

9.	Physical Possession Notice dated 06.02.2023.	R-9
10.	Physical Possession Notice caused in two leading News Papers ‘The New Indian Express’ and ‘Dinamani’dated 11.02.2023.	R-10
11.	Photograph Affixture	R-11
12.	Order passed in CMP No.8268 of 2022 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu dated 05.09.2022.	R-12

¶86

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶87

Property admeasuring 600 sq.ft., house and ground floor, Plot No.2, Kalaignar Karunanidhi Street, as per Property Tax Receipt Door No. 1. Karunanithi Nagar Seevaram, Perungudi. Chennai 600 096, In S. No.133 part and 133/2B3, in No.113, New No.130, Perungudi Village, in Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai District, and bounded on the North by Plot No.3. South by Plot No.1, East by Karunanidhi Street and West by Vacant land, within the sub registration district of Neelangarai land registration district of Chennai South. Sd/-

¶88

(S.V.GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

Ganesan Paranthaman v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesan Paranthaman 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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Periyakkal Traders, Rep by Its Proprietor Mr.P.Dharmalingam

State Bank of India versus Arivalagan

N Rasheeda Begum versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Stejo Bright Steel Industries Rep by Its Proprietor Mr a Stephen Raj

Canara Bank versus Khivraj

Sivagnanam versus Indian Bank