Dismissed

Om Sreedhar Traders v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT29 May 2026SA/151/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitization application challenging possession and vacation notices, the Tribunal noted procedural compliance by the bank but directed the Respondate to cease proceedings against one specific property whose title deeds had already been released, subsequently dismissing the application as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; Bank directed to proceed only against property under charge and not the released Item No. 2 property.

Om Sreedhar Traders versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No.151 OF 2025

¶5

Om Sreedhar Traders, rep. by its Proprietor Reddy Sridha r, 6/160, Babu Agraharam, Srikalahasti, Tirupati District, A.P

¶6

Reddy Sridhar s/o R D Sriramulu Aged 51 years, r/o H.No.8-246, Mangala Veedhi, Kothapta, Srikalahasti, Tirupati District

¶7

Smt. R.D. Sanjeevamma W/o Reddy Sridhar Aged 50 years, r/o H.No.B-246, Mangala Veedhi, Kothapta, Srikalahasti, Tirupati District

¶8

. . . . . .Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

ICICI Bank Limited, Plot No. 24, South Phase, Ambattur, Having its Regd OfficeAmbattur Industrial Estate, Block No. 1, Ambattur, Office ICICI Bank tower, Chennai -600058

¶11

......Respondent

¶12

: Mr. B. Koteswara Rao Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Respondent Bank : Mr. G. Adrian Kiran Raj

¶13

-:ORDER:-

¶14

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicants u/s.17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of securitv rnterest orr, rooTffiinafter for short)

¶15

Page^{2 of 6}

¶16

SA No. 151/2025

¶17

assailing^{possession notice and vacation notice dated t4'02'2025} issued by^{the Respondent Bank in respectof the SA Schedule Property'}

¶18

2, The^{case of the applicants, in brief, is that AppellantNo.1, a} proprietorship^{concern engaged in the business of purchaseand sale of} edible oils,^{availed an overdraftfacility of Rs' 1 Croreon 29'06'202t} from the^{Respondent Bankand depositedtitle deeds relatingto two} immovable^{properties situatedat SrikalahastiTown' AndhraPradesh'} belonging^{to AppellantNos' 2 and 3 as security'The Applicants} thereafter^{utilized the sanctionedloan amountfor businesspurposes} and, in^{May 2024, made substantial repaymentsamounting to Rs'} l,2B,g2,OOO/-.^{Upon receiptof the said amount'the RespondentBank} released the^{title documents pertaining to Item No' 2 propertyafter} about^{three months. However, owingto heavy market competitionand} a downturn^{in businessoperations'the Appellantsfaced financial} difficulties^{and were unable to clear the remaining outstanding dues'} Consequently,^{the RespondentBank issued a demand notice dated} t3,1t.2024^{under Section 13(2) of the Act, upon receipt of the} demand notice,^{Applicants approached the RespondentBank and} informedabouttheirfinancialdifficultiesandbusinessslowdownand Respondent^{Bankassuredthem that no coercive action would be} initiatedandadvisedthemtoclearthedues.attheearliest.Despite such assurances,^{the RespondentBank subsequently issuedSymbolic} PossessionNoticeandVacationNoticedated14'02'2025'directingthe Applicants to^{vacate the secured propertiesand warned of further} steps for taking^{possessionand sale of the properties' The impugned} notices are^{incorrect as they includeboth Item No'1 and Item No' 2} properties, despite^{the fact that the title documents relatingto Item} No. 2 had already^{been released by the RespondentBank after} substantial^{repayment.The value of the secured assets in the} possession of the^{RespondentBank is considerably higher than the} outstanding^{liability and, therefore, initiation of possessionand} ,A>rr* ( /''tsn' _,/

¶19

Page 3 of 6

¶20

sA No. 151/202s

¶21

vacation proceedings is unjustified. Accordingly, they seek to set aside the impugned possession notice dated t4.02.2025.

¶22

Respondent Bank filed reply statement submitting, inter-alia, that the Applicants suppressed the material facts, approached the Tribunal with unclean hands, and filed the application with an oblique motive to delay repayment and frustrate recovery proceedings. Applicant No. 1 firm and had availed an overdraft facility of Rs. 1 Crore in the year 2021 and as security Applicants deposited title deeds relating to two mortgaged properties situated at Srikalahasti Town, Andhra Pradesh, namely property bearing D.No. 6-160/G-160/2 corresponding to old D.No. 6-130 in Survey No. 259 and property bearing D.No. 8-246 corresponding to old D.No.8-237 in Survey No. 259, The Applicants had paid approximately Rs.28,92,000/- toward the loan, after which the documents relating to one of the secured properties were released. However, the Applicants allegedly defaulted in making regular repayments thereafter. It was stated that despite repeated notices, the Applicants failed to discharge their liabilities. Consequently, the loan account was classified as a NpA on 05.09.2024. Thereafter, a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 13.1I.2024 was issued. The Respondent further denied the Applicants, claim that they had approached the Bank seeking additional time and explaining their financial distress. According to the Bank, the Applicants never visited the Bank nor requested any extension. Upon continued default, the Respondent issued a symbolic possession notice and vacation notice dated 14.02.2025, which were published in English and vernacular newspapers and affixed on the secured assets in compliance with Rules B(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (ehfiirtdffieir'U^"FuIe3" (heib'iriaft6i ''mr-165'' 'hfl '3h6rt): "Thb- 'BHn*k maintained that all procedures prescribed under the SARFAESI Act had been duly followed and that physical possestlon woqld be taketake n mffiJl

_"/'t*i"

Page 4 of⁵

sA No.^{L5L|2O25 !}

throughdueprocessoflaw.Hence,praysfordismissaloftheSAand tiberty to^{continue with the recovery measures'}

¶27

4.BothoftheLearnedCounselfortheApplicantsandLearned counsel^{for the RespondentBank reported no oral arguments but filed} writtenarguments.Perusedthewrittenargumentsfiledforthe AAi,li;;riti"^{and ResPondent}

¶28

brought^{on record.}

¶29

5.LearnedCounselfortheRespondentBank,videwritten arguments,^{reiterated the contentsof its reply statement,that the} Applicantssuppressedmaterialfacts,approachedtheTribunalwith uncleanhandsandfiledtheSAonlytodelayrepaymentandfrustrate recovery.^{Itis further stated that ApplicantNo' 1 had availedan} uf'"RB:1'^{urdr€' ih'"'zOz['$Ectlt€tlty"'tfud--pl'updttlEs ''dt} 'verdfdft srikalahasti,^{that the Applicantsrepaid about Rs'1'28'92'0001-and} obtained^{releaseof one property'stitle deeds,'but thereafterdefaulted} despite^{repeatednotices, leading to classification of the account as} NPA on^{05.09.2024 and issuanceof the section 13(2) demandnotice} dated 13.11^{.2024.The Bank submits that the symbolicpossession and} vacation^{notice dated 14.02.2025were duty publishedand affixedin} compliance^{with Rules B(1) and B(2), and therefore the SA is liable to} be dismissed^{with tibertyto continue recovery measures'}

¶30

Per contra,^{Learnedcounsel for the Applicants throughthe} writtenargumentswouldsubmitthatpresentapplicationis ,.,d,..ii,,nl"ainf-a[na.b-Ie,,,..bgth'-,".int,,]4s/"',4$.d':1'Q'lJ'''^{fa"qIs""'Appliganjls'"allggg''th'^a!-the} Respondent^{Bank has not produced correct accountof statementand} have faited^{to considerfor restructuringthe loan account'Applicants} requested^{reasonable time which they weren't granted'Applicants} never intended^{to evadethe repayment of loan and pray for setting} aside^{SARFESImeasures' Applicants sous:Z ailow the SA bv}

¶31

Page 5 of 6

¶32

SA No. 151/2025

¶33

quashing the measures and granting reasonable time to repay the due a mou nt.

¶34

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶35

i) Whether the applicants made out any valid ground to quash the impugned possession notice/vacate notice dated 14.02.2025 issued by the respondent bank against the SA schedule property, as prayed for?

¶36

ii) To what relief?

¶37

Point No.(i):

¶38

B. Admittedly, the applicants availed Overdraft Facility against mortgage of schedule property as security and failed to make payment as per schedule. Hence the action of the Respondent Company in initiating the SARFESI proceedings cannot be termed as illegal or irregular as contended by the applicant.

¶39

, , ^- -^rrt.__ L^-r. -__;^_1 .L^ cA 9. The Respondent Bank filed material documents along with reply statement as proof of compliance of due procedure of law. pages 1 to 6 of the material papers annexed to the reply statement are the Photostat copies of postal receipts and publication in English and Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers on 29.t1.2024 in respect of demand notice. Similarly, Pages 7 to 13 are the photostat copies of postal receipts in respect of possession Notice dated t4.02.2025, photographs as proof of affixture on secured assets and publication of the same in English and Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers on 18.02.2025. The documents placed on record by the Respondent Company remain undisputed. In view of sufficient proof placed on record, I find no infraction of Sections 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act and Rules 3, 8(1) & B(2) of the Rules, 2002. As a secured creditor the Respondent Company initiated the SARFESI proceedings, which cannot be categorized as iilegat or afiitrar/W\

¶40

Page 5^{of 6}

¶41

SA No.^151/202s

¶42

There^{is no disputethat upon substantial paymentof the due} amount,^{the RespondentBank releasedItem No' 2 of the property'} namely,^{"Att that the premisesbearingD'No'8-246 correspondingto} Otd D.No.^{8'237 in Sy' No' 259 situated at SrikalahastiTown' A'P"'On} perusal of the^{record, it is found that the possessionnotice dated} L4.02.2025^{issuedby the Respondent Bank has been issuedagainst} both the^{properties includingthe released one' Though it is incorrect} yet rectifiable.^{Accordingly, the RespondentBank is directed to} proceed in future^{only against the property over which it presently} holds^{charge for realization of residual outstandingamount and not} against^{Item No.2 property of impugned notices'}

¶43

In the^{view of aboveobservations,it iS concluded that the} applicants^{havefailed to make out any valid ground to set aside the} measures^{of the RespondentBank under the Act' 2002 against the SA} schedule^{property which is under charge with RespondentBank as on} today and^{accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed'}

¶44

Point No.(ii):

¶45

In the^{result,the Securitisation Applicationfails is dismissed as} infructuous,

¶46

l3.consequently,InterlocutoryApplicationspending'ifany'shall stand closed.^{No order as to costs' Communicate a copy of this order} to the^{partiesconcernedand upload in the official website'}

¶47

(Typed 'z66aoyofrvroy.zoze). to my dictotion^{by thePs' corrected'signedond pronouncedby me in the open court on this the}

¶48

frWr*

¶49

1A*MrsHwaR^KorHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

Om Sreedhar Traders v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Sreedhar Traders 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

Bobbati Ashok Kumar Reddy versus Canara Bank

B Rangamma versus tadiprtri coopertive

Champak Guha versus Canara Bank

M/s.Switchgear Protections, versus Union Bank of India

Mekala Mohan versus Piramal Capital and Housing Limited

Mekala Surukasi Yadav Alias Gurukasi Yadav versus Shriram Finance Limited