Dismissed

Sree Parmeswara Co. and others v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT19 Feb 2026SA/25/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad dismissed a securitisation application filed by borrowers against ICICI Bank. The Tribunal held that the applicants failed to prove violations of the SARFAESI Act or Rules regarding possession notices and auction procedures, noting the auction had not materialised.

What did the court decide?

Separation of application dismissed as devoid of merits; interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.

Sree Parmeswara Co. and others versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL -^II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19TH^{DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026}

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), f4.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SECURITISATION^{APPLICATION No.25OF 2025}

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s. Sree Parameshwara^{and Co} Rep by its Managing Paftners Tadakamadla Avinash^& T. 'ri Annapurna R/o 1-1-1 16/7, Siddiqet Za h i ra bad, Tela nga^{na - 50 2 1 03.} 2. Sri Tadakamadla^Avinash Occ: Business, H.^{No. 7-3-61/1} Sidd i pet, Sa ng^{a reddY, za h i ra bad} Pin:502103. 3. Smt. T, AnnaPurna Wo^{Tadakamadla Avinash} Occ: Business, H.^{No' 7-i-61/1} Sidd i pet, Sa ng^a reddY,^{Za h i ra bad} Pin:.502103' " " ' "A\Plicants'

¶7

And

¶8

ICICI BANK Rep by its Authorised^Officer ......Respondent. Gachibowli, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Applicants^{: Mr' T. Viiay Kumar'} Counsel for Respondent^{: Mr' G. Adrian KiranRai'} funt

PaEe2ofS

SA No.2sl2025

-:ORDER:-

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 "SARFAESI Act 2002") assailing undated sale notice fixing the date of auction as 77.O7.2025, Advocate Commissioner Notice dated 20.72-2024 pursuant to order in Crl.M.P.No.474 of 2024 on the file of the learned Senior Civll Judge at Kukatpally and possession notice dared 0A.07.2024.

¶13

The case of the applicants, in brief, is that Applicants availed a loan of Rs.3.40 crore from the respondent bank. Despite being regular in payment of the loan amount, respondent classified the account as NPA on 27.02.204 contravening the RBI guidelines, followed by demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 06.04.2024. Applicants raised objections to the demand notice dated 06.04.2024. But the respondent has not responded to the objections to the demand notice. Therefore, all subsequent measures in the absence of compliance of Section 13(3A) are vitiated. However, respondent bank affixed an undated sale notice fixing the auction sale of secured properties on 17.01.2025 and Advocate Commissioner notice dated 20.72.2024 on the SA schedule properties. Applicants have not received any notices under the SARFAESI proceedings other than the demand notice dated 06.04.2024. The alleged possession notice dated 08.07.2024 has neither been affixed on the secured assets nor published in two newspapers as mandated under the Act. No Panchanama has been conducted pursuant to the notice uls f3g) of the Act. Respondent violated Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act. No notices wer^-e served to the 14 of uil:ls

¶14

Page 3 of 5

¶15

SA No.2Sl2025

¶16

the Act. Respondent viotated Rules 8(5),8(6) and 9(1) in obtaining valuation of the properties, issuing 30 days notice of sale and serving/publish in9 sale notice.

¶17

Respondent bank filed reply statement. The submissions of the respondent bank, in brief are that the respondent bank has classified the account as NpA due to default for three consecutive instalments of the loan, hence NpA classification was in accordance with the RBI guidelines. The respondent bank scrupulously followed the procedure as laid down under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, 2002, in issuing possession notice, sale notice, affixture and publication in two newspapers of the notices, obtaining warrant u/s 14 and valuation of the properties. However, auction scheduled on L7.01.2025 was not held for want of bidders.

¶18

Applicants' counsel has not advanced arguments despite conditional order. Therefore, their right of advancing arguments forfeited vide docket order dated 20.01.2026. Whereas learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank filed written arguments and reported no oral arguments.^perused the written arguments filed by the respondent bank and the material placed on record.

¶19

Now the points that arise for adjudication are:-

¶20

(i) Whether the Applicants made out any valid ground for setting aside the action of respondent bank to take physical possession of the secured asset and the notice issued by the respondent bank u/s 13(4) Of thc SARFAESI ACt?

¶21

( ii) To what relief?

/fu"*

Page 4 of5

SA No.2sl2025

Point No.^(il:

The Chief grievance of the applicants is that the respondent bank failed to address the issues raised in the objections to the demand notice dated 06.04.2024 and therefore, all subsequent measures are vitiated. Despite contending so, applicants have not placed a copy of the said objections to the demand notice or proof of service of the same to the respondent bank. Hence, this allegation is baseless and needs no consideration.

¶27

The other contention of the applicants is about the service, affixture and publication of possession notice dated 0A.07.2024 issued u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. In response, respondent bank placed photostat copies of each of possession notice dated 04.O7.2024, photograph evidencing its affixture on secured assets and publication in English and Telugu Dailies vide material papers at pages 16 to 24 annexed to the list of documents filed on 22.01.2025. These documents are not disputed by the applicants. Accordingly, no violation of procedure in the compliance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules in the issuance of possession notice is established.

¶28

As the very auction scheduled on 27,06.2025 itself has not been materialised for want of bidders, no order is necessary in connection with the allegations concerning the compliance of Rules 8(5) and 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rutes, 2002. Accordingly, the SA becomes infructuous to this extent.

¶29

In view of the foregoing observations, it is held that the applicants have failed to make out any valid ground to set aside the possession notice dated Oa.O7.ZO24 issued under Sec.13(4) or fuw,,

¶30

Page 5 of5

¶31

sA No.25l2025

¶32

interdict in the action of the^{respondentbank in proceeding under} Sec.14 of the SARFAESI^{Act for the purpose of taklngthe physical} possession of the secured asset. Accordlngly, the SA^{is liable to be} dismissed as devoid of^merits.

¶33

Point No.(ii):

¶34

In the result, the Securitization^{Applicationfails and is hereby} dismissed.

¶35

Consequently, Interlocutory^{Applicationspending if any, shall} stand closed. No order as to^{costs.Communicatea copy of this} order to the^parties concerned and^{uploadin officialWeb Site'}

¶36

(Typed to my dictotion to the steno, corrccted, signed ond pronounced by me in the open couft on this the 1Y doy of Febtuory, 2026).

¶37

AYu*u (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Sree Parmeswara Co. and others v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Parmeswara Co. 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

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s. Veldi Ramesh Fruits Merchants.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Vijaya Surya Enterprises

Icici Bank Limited versus Ajmeera Suguna

Bharat Iti Mr S Rajashekar Reddy versus Wardhaman Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Mr. Vedighar Nagaraju

Idfc First Bank Limited Now versus M/s. Crystal Management Services.