Dismissed

Annalakshmi Wife of Ganapathy v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT10 Jul 2026SA/168/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application filed by a co-sharer and legal heir challenging attachment and possession of mortgaged property held by a bank. The court held the application infructuous as physical possession was already taken. Relief was granted directing removal of household articles to enable full handover.

What did the court decide?

Directing applicant to remove household articles from ground floor to enable bank to hand over physical possession to borrower; bank permitted to store articles if applicant fails to comply.

Annalakshmi Wife of Ganapathy versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA No.168/2026

10.07.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 10^th day of July, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 168 of 2026

¶8

Mrs. Annalakshmi Ganapathy W/o Ganapathy No.28, Vallalar Kovil Street, Naravarikuppam, Redhills Chennai – 600 052

¶9

…Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

M/s ICICI Bank Limited

¶12

Represented by its Authorised Officer Ambattur Branch, Ambattur Taluk Thiruvallur District

¶13

Mr. R. Jayakumar, S/o Late Rajendran No.3/29, Kambar Street, MA Nagar, Padiyanallur Chennai – 600 052 …Respondents

¶14

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : Ms. Annamma K. for M/s D. Durairaj Counsel for 1^st Respondent : M/s. Kvp Deepak Raj Counsel for 2^nd Respondent : M/s Satheesh J

¶16

ORDER ON SA 168/2026

¶17

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

¶18

Uploaded on 10.07.2026 at 13:00 hours

SA No.168/2026

10.07.2026

The applicant, has challenged the Order of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Thiruvallur in Crl. M.P. No.2254 of 2025 dated 11.09.2025 in respect of the property morefully mentioned in the schedule to the SA.

¶23

The case of the applicant is that she is neither the borrower nor the guarantor in respect of the loan transaction. According to the applicant, she is the legal heir of Late Rajendran and the sister of the 2^nd respondent. It is stated that the 2nd respondent had mortgaged the schedule property in favour of the 1st respondent Bank as security for the credit facilities availed by him. The applicant contends that she is one of the co-sharers in the schedule property and is residing therein. It is her further contention that the 2nd respondent, without obtaining her consent and without taking into consideration her legal rights and undivided interest in the schedule property, created the mortgage in favour of the 1st respondent Bank. According to the applicant, the said mortgage is not binding on her share in the schedule property. The applicant further submits that she has enjoyed the property without any interreference for long years. On the above grounds, the applicant seeks to set aside the measures initiated by 1^st respondent bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶24

The 1^st respondent bank while denying all the averments made in the SA, except those that are specifically admitted therein, submitted that the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an Order on 11.09.2025 permitting the 1^st respondent bank to take physical possession of the schedule mentioned property and appointed Mr. Vilvijayan, as Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of taking physical possession thereof. It is further contended that

¶25

Uploaded on 10.07.2026 at 13:00 hours

SA No.168/2026

10.07.2026

the applicant is a third party to the loan transaction and has no locus standi to maintain the present Securitisation Application. According to the 1^st respondent Bank, the applicant is neither the borrower nor the guarantor and has no enforceable right to challenge the measures initiated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The applicant failed to prove her ownership over the SA schedule property and she does not have locus standii to file the present SA.

¶30

The 1^st respondent bank further submitted that the Advocate Commissioner had intimated the applicant about the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by Ld. CJM, Tiruvallur on 14.11.2025 itself. Despite such intimation, the 2^nd respondent neither raised any objection nor discharged the loan liability. Consequently, the Advocate Commissioner took physical possession of the schedule mentioned property on 05.03.2026. Hence, the present SA is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the prayer has become infructuous.

¶31

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

¶32

During the pendency of SA, 1^st respondent bank filed memo on 03.07.2026 before this Tribunal submitting therein that in furtherance to the order passed by Ld. CJM, the Advocate Commissioner has taken physical possession of the property on 05.03.2026. Subsequent to taking the physical possession of the property, the 2^nd respondent being the borrower had approached the respondent bank for settlement under OTS and had remitted the sum of Rs.58 lakhs on 19.06.2026 towards full

¶33

Uploaded on 10.07.2026 at 13:00 hours

¶34

SA No.168/2026

¶35

4 10.07.2026

¶36

satisfaction of the OA claim and had closed the loan account. The respondent bank is fully satisfied with the payment.

¶37

It is further submitted by the 1^st respondent bank that based on the payment made by the 2^nd respondent, the physical possession related to the 1^st and 3^rd floors of the property have been handed over by the 1^st respondent bank to the 2^nd respondent. However, as the when the 2^nd respondent approached the 1^st respondent bank to handover the physical possession with regard to the ground floor, the household articles of the applicant are kept in the ground floor. hence the 1^st respondent bank contacted applicant to remove the household articles from the property, but the applicant has not co-operated with the 1^st respondent bank in removing the same. Hence the 1^st respondent bank had prayed to direct the applicant to remove the household articles from the premises, failing which to permit the 1^st respondent to remove the same and store the house hold articles of the applicant in their Yard and hand over the physical possession of the ground floor to the 2^nd respondent.

¶38

The applicant claims that she is one of the legal heirs of Late Rajendran and a co-sharer in the schedule mentioned property and, therefore, has an independent right and interest in the secured asset. To substantiate her case, counsel for applicant had produced copy of order of Additional Subordinate Judge, Ponneri in OS No.132 of 2017 dated 05.12.2025.

¶39

Uploaded on 10.07.2026 at 13:00 hours

SA No.168/2026

10.07.2026

On the other hand, the 1^st respondent bank contends that the applicant is neither the borrower nor the guarantor and, being a third party, has no locus standi to maintain the present SA. It is further contended that, pursuant to the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur, the Advocate Commissioner took physical possession of the secured asset on 05.03.2026 and, therefore, the relief sought in the present SA has become infructuous.

¶44

This Tribunal has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The records disclose that the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur, by order dated 11.09.2025, permitted the 1^st respondent Bank to take physical possession of the secured asset. It is also borne out from the records that physical possession of the secured asset was taken through the Advocate Commissioner on 05.03.2026.

¶45

Insofar as the objection regarding locus standi is concerned, the applicant claims an independent right over the secured asset as a co-sharer and legal heir. Admittedly, the applicant had instituted O.S. No. 132 of 2017 before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ponneri. By order dated 05.12.2025, the Civil Court passed a preliminary decree declaring that the applicant is entitled to 1/4^th share in the suit property. However, the applicant has not obtained a final decree effecting partition and separate possession of the said share till date.

¶46

This Tribunal, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 17(2) of the SARFAESI Act, is empowered to examine the measures taken by the

¶47

Uploaded on 10.07.2026 at 13:00 hours

SA No.168/2026

10.07.2026

respondent Bank under the provisions of the Act and to determine whether such measures have been taken in accordance with law. For ready reference, Section 17(2) of SARFAESI Act is reproduced as under:

¶52

“The Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider whether any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor for enforcement of security are in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.”

¶53

In the present case, the principal relief sought by the applicant is to restrain the respondents from taking physical possession of the secured asset. Since physical possession has already been taken on 05.03.2026, the said relief cannot now be granted and consequently, to that extent, the prayer has become infructuous. Further, the 1^st respondent bank had reported full satisfaction of their dues from the 2^nd respondent and that they have already handed over physical possession of the 1^st and 3^rd floor to the 2^nd respondent and prayed to direct the applicant to remove her house hold articles from the premises failing which to permit the 1^st respondent to remove the same and store the household articles in their yard and hand over physical possession of the ground floor to the 2^nd respondent.

¶54

From the foregone submissions and on perusal of records, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following order:

¶55

Uploaded on 10.07.2026 at 13:00 hours

SA No.168/2026

10.07.2026

(i) In the result, SA stands dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

(ii) The applicant is directed to remove her personal belongings and household articles lying in the Ground Floor of the schedule mentioned property, on a date and time to be mutually fixed by the parties within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the 1^st respondent bank is at liberty to remove the house hold articles and store the same in their yard, in accordance with law.

¶61

(iii) The Advocate Commissioner/Authorised Officer shall fix a convenient date, issue prior intimation to the applicant, and facilitate the removal of the applicant's personal belongings under proper inventory.

¶62

(iv) It is clarified that the dismissal of the present SA shall not prejudice the applicant's right to pursue such remedies as may be available to her under law before the competent forum in respect of her alleged right, title or interest in the schedule mentioned property.

¶63

A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned.

¶64

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

¶65

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 10^th day of July, 2026)

¶66

Uploaded on 10.07.2026 at 13:00 hours

SA No.168/2026

10.07.2026

ANNEXURES

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶72

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Aadhar Card of the Applicant dated 15.11.2013	A-1
2.	Voter Identity Card dated 09.01.2018	A-2
3.	Pan Card	A-3
4.	Transfer Certificate of R. Annalakshmi dated 19.03.2012	A-4
5.	Bharatgas Bill of the Applicant dated 02.11.2022	A-5
6.	CSR No.337 of 2015 issued by Redhills Police Station dated 26.04.2015	A-6
7.	Legal heir certificate issued by Tasildar, Madavaram dated 29.06.2015	A-7
8.	Madras High Court Judgment in WP No.4942/2019 dated 11.03.2021	A-8
9.	Partition Suit filed by applicant in OS No.132/2017–July, 2017	A-9
10.	Order in Crl. M.P. No.2847/2025 dated 11.09.2025	A-10
11.	Copy of Advocate Commissioner notice with Warrant dated 14.11.2025	A-11
12.	Order of Additional Subordinate Judge, Ponneri in O.S. No.132 of 2016 dated 05.12.2025	A-12

¶73

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE 1^st RESPONDENT BANK

¶74

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Registered as Document No.8969/2022 dated 06.07.2022	R-1
2.	Panchnama and Inventory List dated 05.03.2026	R-2
3.	Physical Possession Photos dated 05.03.2026	R-3
4.	Settlement Deed Registered as Document No.4373/2014 dated 02.05.2014	R-4
5.	Encumbrance Certificate	R-5
6.	Order passed by DRT-III, Chennai dated 05.03.2026	R-6

¶75

Uploaded on 10.07.2026 at 13:00 hours

SA No.168/2026

10.07.2026

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶80

All that piece and parcel of land and building situated within the District of Thiruvallur Registration District of Chennai – North, Sub Registration District of Redhills, comprised in Survey Nos.95/6A2, 95/9 and 95/9B, measuring an extent of 1810 Sq. ft. at No.28, Vallalar Koil Street, Naravarikuppam, Redhills, Chennai – 600 052 with being bounded on

¶81

North by : Narayanamoorthy Plot South by : 20” Feet Road East by : Rajagapal Plot West by : 20” Feet Road (Vallalar Street)

¶82

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

¶83

Uploaded on 10.07.2026 at 13:00 hours

Annalakshmi Wife of Ganapathy v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annalakshmi Wife of Ganapathy 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

Canara Bank versus Amutharaj

Pranav Foundations Private Limited versus Idbi Bank

State Bank of India versus Vinoth

Canara Bank versus Sivagnanam

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Karunakaran

Bank of Baroda versus Skp Enterprises