Dismissed

Rohit Enterprises and Others v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT29 Jun 2026SA/23/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Deputy Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application filed by a mortgagor challenging a vacate notice issued by an Advocate Commissioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the bank had validly served possession and demand notices under Section 13.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the vacate notice dated 16.01.2025 and vacant possession of the schedule property.

Rohit Enterprises and Others versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29rH DAY of JUNE, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.23 ot 2025

¶5

Between :

¶6

Rohit Enterprises, Represented by Proprietor Shradha Vyas,7/B/25, Gandhi gunj, Nizamabad,

¶7

Telangana, Nizamabad - 503 001.

¶8

Smt Shradha Vyas, W/o Rameshwar Vyas,

¶9

Aged 57 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.7-B-22, Gandhigunj, Nizamabad.

¶10

Applicants

¶11

Versus

¶12

ICICI Bank Limited.

¶13

Represented by its authorised officer, H.no.6- 13-212, Namdev wada,

¶14

Nizamabad, Telangana - 503 001.

¶15

ICICI Bank Limited,

¶16

Represented by its authorised officer, Having regional office at ICICI Bank,

¶17

Gachibowli Financial district,

¶18

Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶19

Respondents

¶20

Shri T. Vijay Kumar

¶21

$ungrgo6lflpTggnderrt

¶22

Sri G. Adrian Kiran Raj

¶23

(SA.No.23l202s)

¶24

Orders reservedon	: 08.05.2026
Pronouncedon	: 29.06.2026
Uploaded inwebsiteon	: 30.06.2026

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The applicants filed Securitisation^{Application under Section 17 of the} Securitisation and Reconstruction^{of FinancialAssets and Enforcement} of Security Interest Act, 2002^{(for short "SARFAESIAct) challenging} the Advocate Commissioner vacate^{notice dated 16.01'02025in} Crl.MP.546/2024 issued by the Hon'ble Chief^{Judicial Magistrate,} Nizamabad^pursuant to Possession Notice dated^{17.10.2024issued by} the Respondent bank.

¶27

The averments made in the application in brief are as^follows:

¶28

The Applicant No.1 which is a Proprietorship firm^{representedby} applicant no.2 availed business loan facility from the^{respondent bank} and mortgaged the schedule mentioned^property. Due to unfavourable market conditions, the applicants ran into a temporary liquidlty^crunch and could not pay some EMI's. while the matter stood thus,^the respondent bank declared the applicants account as NPA as^{per RBI} gujdelineS:t ..,.Jhe respondent bank has initiated proceedings under .i.1i^{i_,i t} i.,.:.1...^.:" .i'.c. .. t f !,'. .)-, ,:.. SARFAffi RctSy.l\suing demand notice dated 06.07.2024^{and later} i,,i1" {S r4\ i, .L issued Firsserrioil.iUti." dated 17.10.2024.^{But the same was not} ii.; 2 I ,tult 426 "'ll 1,'fl^{servedon -th-e applitants and it was not affixedon the schedule} .'i':.' .. .:] ^:^-.1,' 'iiJ&-q"lt;,hl$ef,Efl. te co m m i ssⁱ o n e rⁱ s s u ed n otice d a ted^L 6'^{o L .202s} 2 .wry

¶29

(SA.No.23l202s)

¶30

to the applicants for vacating the schedule property basing on the orders in Crl.Mp.546/2024 on the file of Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nizamabad. The respondent bank has not followed the procedure laid down in the SARFAESI Act in issuing the notices. Hence the SA.

¶31

The respondent no.1 bank filed reply statement contending that as the applicants failed to repay the loan amount, the respondent has classified the account as NPA on 20.05.2024 and thereafter issued demand notice dated 06.07.2024 under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act and the same was served on the applicants. Thereafter the respondent bank issued Possession notice dated t7.t0.2024 under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and the said notice was affixed on the schedule property which was published in "Nava Telangana and Indian Express" daily newspapers. Thereafter the respondent bank initiated proceedings under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by filing Crl.MP.546/2024 on the file Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nizamabad and got appointed Advocate commissioner for taking physical possession. The said Advocate commissioner issued 15 days vacate notice to the applicants. So, the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

s of both Counsels. nsideration is

¶33

have established any ground for Commissioner vacate notice dated

¶34

(sA.No.231202s)

¶35

16.01.2025 in Crl.MP.546/2024 issued by^{the Hon'ble Chief} ludicial Magistrate, Nizamabad^{pursuantfo Possession Notice} dated 17.10.2024 against the^{schedule property?}

¶36

ii) To What RelieP

¶37

Point no.i)

¶38

During the course of arguments, the^{Ld counsel for applicantsand} respondent bank reiterated their^{respectiveversions stated supra.}

¶39

There is no dispute regarding the^{fact that the applicants} availed loan facility by creating^mortgage of^{schedule propertyand} thereafter committed default and^{the accountwas classifiedas NPA on} 20.05.2024, so the respondent bank^{issued demand notice dated} 06.07.2024.

¶40

The contention of the applicants^is that the^{respondent bankhas} not served^possession notice on the applicants^{and withoutfollowing} the SARFAESI Act and the^Rules made thereunder^{got appointed} Advocate Commissioner, who issued^notice dated^{16.1.2025 to the} applicants and the impugned^{possession notice} dated^{17'10.2024 is} not valid and not binding on the applicants.

¶41

of the respondent bank is that the^{respondent bank} the^procedure laid down in SARFAESI^Act in issuing the statutory notices to^the

¶42

,ir.^{up-erl:?:!?*Pl.r iipr9nedPossession notice dated 17.10.2024and also} , - -'.' :-..'^' 'j ...a4::) /r/ ..r\/ r. i-'r.r,' ; r. ..-r,''-\rl",..:;jt' 4

¶43

(sA.No.23l202s)

¶44

the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner on 16.01.2025 are perfectly legal, valid and binding on the applicants.

¶45

The respondent bank in order to establish that it has followed the procedure laid down in the SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder has enclosed the material documents along with the reply. As per the said documents it is clear that on 06.07.2024 the respondent bank issued demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAEI Act to the applicants demanding them to pay entire amount due within 60 days. The said notice is received by the applicants as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements. Thereafter the respondent bank issued Possession notice dated 17.10.2024 to the applicants and the said possession notice was published in the newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the respondent. The said possession notice was also alfixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the respondent bank. Thus, the respondent bank has followed the procedure laid down in Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules in issuing the possession notice.

¶46

ing the possession notice, the respondent bank being entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 14 of approaching the concerned Chief ludicial pointment of Advocate Commissioner for taking of the schedule property. Accordingly the

¶47

(sA. No.23l202s)

¶48

Applicants filed crl.MP.546/2024^{on the file of Hon'ble chiefJudicial} Magistrate, Nizamabad.^{The Ld ChiefJudicial Magistrate after} considering the record,^{was pleasedto appoint Advocate commissioner} for taking^{physical possessionof the schedulepropefty.The said} Advocate Commissioner^{issued impugnedvacate notice dated} 16.01.2025 to the Applicants^{directing them to vacate the schedule} premises. so the said notice issued by^{the Advocatecommissioneris} perfectly legal, valid and binding on the applicants.^{So, I see no} illegality or irregularity in the^{proceedingsinitiated by the Respondent} bank for taking^{physicalpossession of the scheduleproperty through} Advocate commissioner after^{issuing Possessionnotice.So there are} no merits in the SA and hence SA^{is liable to be dismissed. This point} is answered accordingly.

¶49

Point no.ii)

¶50

In the result, 5A.23/2025^is dismissed.

¶51

The Interlocutory Applications,^{pending if any, shall standdisposedof.} No order as to costs.

¶52

Communicate a copy of this order to^{the parties concerned.}

¶53

corrected' sisned and pronounced bv me in the open coutt on this the
'i.25r,ffi-ry*r'
siu-
A.
',i:" @ b<br>J r RUF caryr, - PRE'rDrNG oFFrcER- -!9:9-o. lr-cI3I-Dl
'fi
z s JUN 2s26 lli J// $-14y.'+
,,1.
r,,, ^ta,S'l DR7.6,H
_-F$:s,l
.'.;';'g.l$p
,--iJ= -

Rohit Enterprises and Others v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Enterprises 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Laxmi Venkataramana Constructions versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Mrs Gada Uma Lavanya versus Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Dsr Electricals

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sainath Poultry Feed Making Plant

V Raghavendra versus Union Bank of India

Mr Vedere Laxmi Vamsheedhar Reddy versus State Bank of India