Dismissed

S R Trading Company v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT24 Mar 2026SA/115/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a securitization application filed by a trader seeking to set aside the bank's measures under S. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, including enforcement of security interest and taking physical possession via court assistance, finding no illegality in the bank's actions or procedural compliance.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application filed under S. 17 of the SARFAESI Act is dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of; no order as to costs.

S R Trading Company versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

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

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24TH^{DAY OF MARCH,2026}

¶3

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

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

Securitization Application No.115^{OF 2025}

¶6

S. R. Trading Company

¶7

Rep by Proprietor K. Kaleem^Basha S/o K Abdul Gaffar, aged^{55 years} Occ:Business, Gender^lvlale R/o 41343/39/2, Telecom^Nagar Ramjal Road, Adoni, Kurnool⁵¹⁸³⁰¹

¶8

.......Applicant.

¶9

Versus

¶10

ICICI Bank Limited Begumpet Bra nch, Jayalakshmi^Towers Hyderabad 500016 Rep by its Authorized Officer

¶11

ICICI Bank Limited Rep by its Authorized Officer 27-L73-A, Beside Sai^BabaTemPle Baba Nagar, Adoni, Kurnool⁵¹⁸³⁰¹

¶12

... ....Respondents.

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant :Mr. P. Prakash Raju

¶14

Counsel for Respondent^Bank : Mr.G. Adrian Kiran^Raj

¶15

-: (!.-BD-EB:-

¶16

The Applicant Flled the^{present SecuritisationApplication u/s.17} of the Securitization and^{Reconstruction of FinancialAssetsand} Enforcement of Security Interest^{Act, 2002 (hereinafter"the Act" for} short) to set aside the^{measuresof respondents1 and 2 ("resPondent} bank" hereinafter) against^{the SA schedulepropertyunderSec 13(4),} inctuding action of bank in^obtaining o.oetsffiN.344/2024^on

¶17

2of4

¶18

SA No.115/202s

¶19

the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cu m-prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool, for taking physical possession of the property.

¶20

The case of the applicant in brief, is that he availed business loan from respondent bank in 2021 against mortgage of application schedule property, by executing loan documents. Without considering regular payments and without properly calculating the Etvlls, account was classified as NPA. Demand notice u/s 13(2) was not served on applicant. Without complying Rules 8(1) and g(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 (,,Rules,, hereinafter), the respondent bank has taken action to take physical possession of the property. Hence the SA.

¶21

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. It is stated, inter alia, that the applicant,s account was classified as NpA subsequent to default in payment of three consecutive EMis as per RBI guidelines. Applicant never approached for regularization of account. Covid-19 related moratorium was only for six months and interest charged as per RBI guidelines. Applicant was served with all notices. Respondent bank followed Rules g(1) and B(2). SA is liabte to be dismissed.

¶22

Representative of learned counsel for applicant reported no oral arguments. Heard learned counsel for the respondent bank. perused the written arguments filed for respondent bg{k and the material docu ments brought on record.

¶23

3 of4

¶24

sA No.11sl202s

¶25

Learned counsel for the^{respondent bankreiteratedthe version} as in the reply statement.^{While relying on the documents placedon} record, learned counsel^{contendedthat the respondent hasfollowed} due^procedure of^{taw and hence SA is liableto be dismissed.}

¶26

Now, the points that arise^{for consideration are;-}

¶27

(i) whether the applicants^made out^{anyvalid groundto} set aside the any of the^{measuresof the respondent} bank including action to^{take physicalpossessionof SA} schedule^property,as PraYed^for?

¶28

( ii) To what relief?

¶29

Point No,(i):-

¶30

Admittedly, the applicant^{availed loan againstmortgage'On one} hand applicant denies that^{account was NPA and bank failed to serve} demand notice, but on the^{other hand he admits in the apPlication} that after having^{knowledge of demandnotice he approached the} bank for regularization of^{account. Applicant failed to prove any} illegality in classification^{of accountas NPA and non-service of} demand notice.

¶31

Possession notice dated^{f0.05.2024was sent by registeredpost} to the applicant,^{affixed on secured asset and published in English and} Telugu newspapers. I find^{no infraction of Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the} Rules,2002.

¶32

Secured credltor^{is entitledunder Sec.14 of the Act to approach} concerned CMM/Dlvl^{seeking assistanceto take physicalpossessionof} secured asset. Accordingly^{respondent o"r*}

ry:to.34412024

4of4

sA No.115/2025

before learned CJM-cum-prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool. There is no illegality in such action.

¶37

Applicant failed to make out any valid ground to set aside measures of respondent bank under Sec.13(4) or action in taking physical possession of SA schedule property. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Point No.(ii):

¶39

In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby dismissed. 12. ConsequenUy, Interlocutory Applications pending if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶40

No order as to costs.

¶41

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

¶42

(Typed to my dictation by the pS, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th doy of Morch, 2026).

¶43

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

S R Trading Company v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S R Trading Company 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

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Priyanka Mahajan

Poreddy Malla Reddy versus Hdfc Bank

Mukkera Thirupathi Reddy versus Hdfc Bank

Asset Reconstruction Company Limited versus Shailesh Kumar Gujjar

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s. Capital Protection Private Limited.

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Himabindu Mullapudi