Dismissed

Om Sai Developers v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT6 Jan 2026SA/23/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's plea to set aside the respondent bank's measures, including the action to take physical possession, holding that the applicant failed to make out any valid ground given the default and due procedure followed.

What did the court decide?

No relief; all measures of the respondent bank, including the action to take physical possession, stand maintained.

Om Sai Developers versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

sA No.23l2025

¶2

Bench work and Paucity^of 72.72.2025 Order not^{ready due to heavy} time. Call^{on 30 t2.7025'}

¶3

P. O.

¶4

oD ca' Ptosidln!^{olllc'ron l['11'} 2L s"lLy'"' t and^rclouncd

¶5

06.o7.2026 Order Securitizatlon^{pronounced Applicatton videsep-arate ralls and sheets' is hereby In the result' dismissed'the} i""t"t"r"i,rv,^{the Intertocutorv APpllcations p"n9ing:} f 3lf: Ii"ii .iJ"'ii6."0.^{t"to order as to costs' communicate a copv} t" the^{parties concerned and upload in the} #';i;;;;; official^website.

¶6

P.O.

¶7

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶8

DATED THIS THE O6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶9

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

¶10

Securitization Application No.23 OF 2025

¶11

I'4ls Om Sai Developers Rep by its Prop. Vanjavaka Samrajyam S/o Subramanyam V Aged about 49 years. Occ;Business R/o F. No.101. BNR Kalanjili,Komally Hyderabad

¶12

Vanjavaka Samrajyam S/o Subramanyam V Aged about 49 years, Occ; Business R/o F, No.101, BNR Kalanjili, Komally Hyderabad

¶13

versus

¶14

" "A,Plicants'

¶15

ICICI Bank Limited #Plot No.24, Ambattur Industrial Estate Block No.1, Ambattur, Chennai-600058 Rep by its Authorized Officer

¶16

....Respondent,

¶17

Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. Kranthi Kumar Kadari

¶18

Counsel for Respondent : Mr.G. Adrian Kiran Raj

¶19

-:ORDER:-

¶20

The Applicants filed the present Securitisation Application u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to set aside all the measures of the respondent bank including the action to take physical possession of the application schedule properties pursuant to Advocate Commissioner notice dated

owo

Page^{2 of 4}

SA No'23/2025

of 2024 on^{the file of learned senior} 30.72.2024^{in Crl. MP No'483} Magistrate,^KukatpallY' Civil Judge,^{Cum Chief ludicial}

¶25

The case of^{the applicant'in brief is that he availed business} by executing^{relevant documentsand mortgaged the application} schedule^{properties as securityThe respondentbank obtained} signatures^{on a bunchof blank printed documentsDue to financial} crunchandlockdownapplicantcouldnotpaySomeinstalments. Without^{consideringthe request to give sometime' the respondent} bank is^{trying to take physical possessionwithout serving demand} notice u/s^{13(2) and possession notice u/s 13(4) of the Act and} without affixing^{and publishing the possession notice u/r 8(1)and} 8(2) of^{the Security Interest (Enforcement)Rules'2002("Rules"} hereinafter).^{Hence this SA'}

¶26

The respondent^{bank filed reply statement' The submissions'} briefly,^{are that due to defaultin repaymentthe account becameNPA} on 29.12,2023^{as per RBI guidelines'The demand noticedated} 17.02.2024^{and possessionnotice dated70'Og '2024 were servedon} applicant^{and the possession noticewas affixed on secured assets} besides^{publishing the same as per Rules 8(1) and 8(1)of the Rules'} 2002.ThereafterrespondentbankapproachedthelearnedSenior Civil ludge^{Cum Chief ludicialMagistratefor assistance to take} physical^{possession of the securedasset under Sec 14 of the Act'} 2002.^{The respondentbank has followed the due procedureand} hence^{SA is liableto be dismissed'}

¶27

for apPlicant^{stated orders} 4. Representative^{of learnedcounsel} the written^{argumentsfiled} may be^{passed based on records Perused} bank and material^record' by the^{learned counsel for the respondent} 0X.-"

¶28

Page 3 of4

¶29

sA No.2312025

¶30

The^points for consideration are as follows : -

¶31

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid^ground to quash any of the measures of the respondent against the SA schedule property, as prayed for?

¶32

ii) To what relieP

¶33

Point No.(i):

¶34

Admittedly the applicants availed credit facility from the respondent against mortgage of the application schedule properties and committed default in repayment. Hence classifying the accounts as NPA and initiating Securitization measures cannot be illegal.

¶35

The respondent placed on record proof of sending the Securitization notices to the applicant to two addresses, proof of publication of demand notice and possession notice. and amxture of possession notice. These documents are not disputed by the applicant. As per Sec.14 of the Act, 2002 the respondent being secured creditor is entitled to take action for taking physical Possession^{of the securedassets.}

¶36

Hence, it is concluded that the applicant failed to make out any valid ground to set aside any of the measures of the respondent including the action to take physical possession of the SA schedule properiy. Accordingly sA is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

Point No.(ii):

¶38

In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶39

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. /mW.,

/mW., (Jr'{.t:r.\

Page 4 of 4

SA No.23l2025

No order^{as to costs.}

¶44

t2.Communicateacopyofthisordertothepartiesconcernedand upload in^{the officialwebsite.}

¶45

(Typed to my dictotion by the^{iteno,corrected, signed ondpronounced by me in the opencourton} this the o6th^{doy of Januory, 2026).}

¶46

ffiY*:;t" ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

Om Sai Developers v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Sai Developers 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

S Nadeem Shuleb versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Laxmi-E-Mobility

Udayagiri Eswaramma versus Karur Vysya Bank

Bank of Baroda versus Prasanna Kumar

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Shri. K. Bhaskar Reddy

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Sahastra Agro Traders