Dismissed

Sumit Kumar and others v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT28 Jan 2026SA/172/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI application, applicants sought to quash a bank's possession notice and demand notice citing non-service and NPA up-gradation refusal. The tribunal dismissed the application, noting procedural infirmities but ruling that non-joinder of necessary parties rendered it non-maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashing the SARFAESI action and possession notice is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Sumit Kumar and others versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA 172 of 2024 IJI

DRT, PATNA

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶5

Presiding Officer :Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

SA- 172 of 2024

¶7

1 Sumit Kumar, Son of Vidyanand Roy, Resident of Village + Post – Pipradewas, Ward No. 10, P.S. – Baurani, District – Begusarai, Pin - 851102 (Borrower).

¶8

2 Meena Devi, Wife of Vidyanand Roy, Resident of Village + Post – Pipradewas. Ward No. 10, P.S. – Baurani, District – Begusarai, Pin - 851102. (Mortgagor).

¶9

.........Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

1 Authorized Officer, ICICI Bank Ltd., Zonal Office 2-'’ and 3'd Floor bulab palace Near – Panchmukhi, Hanuman Mandir East Boring Kanal Road, Patna, 800001 (Bihar).

¶12

2 The Branch Manager, IC;ICI Bank, Mahamadpur, Raghunathpur, Branch, Near Kapasia Chowk, Begusarai.

¶13

-–respondents

¶14

Present :

¶15

For the Applicants : Sh. Brij Bhushan Poddar, Advocate For the Respondent Bank : Ms. Somya Raushan. Advocate

¶16

Dated: 28.01.2026

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Present application has been filed with a prayer to quash entire SARFAESI action taken against the properties of applicant alongwith possession notice dated 15.05.2024.

¶19

After reserving the case for order, the applicant filed IA Dy. No. 743/2025 with the prayer to de-reserve the case. Thereafter, the applicant filed a written argument.

¶20

The brief fact of the case is that the applicants availed Overdraft facility to the tune of Rs.31.50 Lacs from the respondent bank. To

SA 172 of 2024 IJI

DRT, PATN A

secure the loan facility. the applicant no.2 mortgaged her property in favour of the respondent bank. Due to default in repayment of dues of the bank, the accounts were classified as NPA on 16.12.2021. Subsequently, the respondent bank initiated SARFAESI action against the borrower by issuing Demand Notice dated 18.04.2022 u/s 13(2) of the act calling upon the borrower to make the payment of Rs.24.76,947.81. Thereafter, the respondent took symbolic possession of the property by issuing Possession Notice dated 15.05.2024 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Aggrieved from the possession notice, the present SA has been filed by the applicants.

¶26

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel of applicant that due to Corona Pandemic the account of the applicants become irregular. However, on receipt of a recall notice dated 13.01.2022 of the bank, the applicants Rs.7,75,000/- with the bank by 28.03.2022. After payment of above said amount, the applicant’s overdraft account was entitled for up-gradation from NPA to Standard category but despite request. the respondent bank refused to do so which is complete violation of RBI IRAC norms regarding up-gradation of NPA to Standard.

¶27

It is further submitted that neither the demand notice issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act nor the Possession Notice has been served upon the applicants. After a lapse of 02 years from the issuance of demand notice, the respondent bank published the possession notice on 21.05.2024. The property has also not been registered with the Central Registry.

¶28

On the contrary. Id. Counsel of the respondent bank submits that the applicants’ alongwith one Kajal Kurnari after availing the loan facility failed and neglected to repay the amount due under facility, hence, the accounts was classified as NPA on 16.12.2021. Thereafter. a recall notice dated 13.01.2022 was sent to the applicants demanding the entire dues of the bank. Accordingly, the applicants deposited Rs.9,17,000/- only by 28.03.2022 against the dues of Rs.32,24,255/Hence, the respondent bank issued Demand Notice dated 18.04.2022

SA 172 of 2024 [JI

DRT, PATN A

and the same was duly delivered to the applicants. The demand notice was also published in “Morning India” and "Sunmarg" on 24.05.2022. Even after service of demand notice. the applicants failed to repay the dues of the bank, hence the bank taken symboIIc possession of the secured asset by issuing possession notice dated 15.05.2024 u/s 13(4) of the act. The Possession Notice was duly delivered to the applicants and the copy of same was pasted on the premises of the mortgaged property. The Possession Notice was also published in ''Sunrnarg'’ and “Morning India" on 21.05.2024.

¶34

1 have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

¶35

It has been alleged that after payment of Rs.9,17.000/-, the applicant's overdraft account was entitled for up-gradation from NPA to Standard category as per RBI IRAC norms regarding up-gradation of NPA to Standard but the respondent bank refused to do so. It is also alleged that neither the demand notice issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act nor the Possession Notice has been served upon the applicants. The property has also not been registered with Central Registry

¶36

On perusal of records it appears that on default in repayment, the account was classified as NPA on 16.12.2021. Subsequently, SARFAESI Action was initiated by issuing Demand Notice dated 18.04.2022 and the same was sent to the applicant through speed post on 22.04.2022 as evident from the annexure - 4. page 58-59 and the same duly delivered to the applicants as evident from the tracking report filed with counter affidavit as annexure – 4, page 6370. The demand notice was also published in “Morning India" and “Sunrnarg" on 24.05.2022. Further, the respondent bank took symbolic possession of the secured asset by issuing possession notice dated 15.05.2024 u/s 13(4) of the act. The Possession Notice was sent to the applicants through registered post on 23.05.2024 as appears from the annexure – 7. page 88-90 and possession notice but the respondent bank failed to file its tracking report which is best

A \ I

SA 172 of 2024 IJI

DRT. PATNA

evidence to show the service of possession notice. The possession notice was affixed on the secured asset and also got published in Sunmarg" and “Morning India" on 21.05.2024.

¶42

So far, objections raised regarding non up-gradation of account as Standard after payment of a certain amount is concerned, neither the applicant nor the respondent has filed evidence to prove their respective stand.

¶43

At the same time it is not out of place to consider the effect of non- joinder of the borrower firm Orn Enterprises, and one Kajal Kumari in the present application. Non-joinder of aforesaid necessary parties gives rise to the mu}tiplicity of judicial proceedings. At the same time the possibility of willingness of other stakeholders to pay the dues as demanded by the respondent cannot be ruled out. If they are willing, the purpose of the present SARFAESI Application will get infructuous. Application is not maintainable without impleading the firm the borrower/guarantor. In the above circumstances despite the aforesaid infirmities, no relief can be granted to the applicant

¶44

In view of the above discussion, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The application SA 172 of 2024 is dismissed with no orders foG$o)ts.

¶47

r __/'’ t,*~a’ [KaushalendraYadav]

¶48

Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶49

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 28Th Day of January, 2026' /phP {_N,"’ #~~ [KaushalendraYadav]

¶50

Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

Sumit Kumar and others v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Kumar and others 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

Punjab National Bank versus M/S First Engineer

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ram Sidhari

Icici Bank Limited versus Shaikh Ayub

Jitendra Singh versus Punjab National Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Sucha Singh

Canara Bank versus Manga Singh Aulakh