Dismissed

Sv Agencies Usathish Usunitha v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT3 Jul 2026SA/286/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the Applicants' Section 17 application challenging the Respondent's physical possession proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, finding that all statutory procedures including notice issuance and publication were duly followed.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 filed by the Applicants is dismissed as they are not entitled to any relief.

Sv Agencies Usathish Usunitha versus Icici Bank… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL^{_ 'I} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY oF JULY. 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.286/2024

¶5

M/s S.V.Agencies Rep. by its Proprietor U Satish Kumar, D.No.4-6-28, Dwarakanagar, Karimnagar.

¶6

U. Satish Kumar, S/o U Ramulu, Aged 47 years, R/o H.No.8-1-138, Bhagathnagar, Karimnagar.

¶7

U. Sunitha, W/o U Satish Kumar, Aged 47 years, R/o H.No.8-1-138, Bhagathnagar, Karimnagar .'.. Applicants Versus ICICI Bank Ltd. Rep. by its Auth Plot No.1 1 1, H.No.8-7Ganesh Nagar, Kothiralhpu$ J Karimnagar-SOs 001 . 1, Counsel for the Applicants Counsel for Respondent Reserued on :01.07.2O26 Pronounced on :03.07.2026 Uploaded on : O3.O7.2O26

¶8

ORDER

¶9

1 . This application is filed by the Applicants u/ s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Karimnagar in Crl.M.P.No.7O 124 and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶10

The averments made in the application,^{in brief, are that:}

¶11

The Applicants availed loan of^{Rs.30 lakhs from the Respondent and} the Applicants have been^{paying instalments regularly.However, due} to financial crunch and Covid-19,^{the Applicants couldnot make some} payments. Without serving demand notice and^{possession notice to the} Applicants, the Respondent straightway^{proceeded u/ s14 of the} SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking^{physicalpossession of schedule} property pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Karimnagar^{and so, the said} proceedings are not legal and valid. The impugned^{possession notice} was not published in two daily newspapers^{and also not affixed on the} schedule property as contemplated u/r^{8(1)&(2)of Security Interest} (Enforcement) Rules,2OO2. Hence the^SA.

¶12

¶13

The Respondent filed their Reply^{denying all the adverseallegations} made in the SA and contended that^{after classificationof the loan} account of the Applicants as^NPA on^{03.10.2022, tlne Respondentbank} issued demand notice dt.O3.01.2023 u/s^{13(2) of the SARFAESIAct,} 2OO2 and the said notice was duly^{served on the Applicants.Thereafter,} the Respondent issued^{possession notice dt.26.05.2023and the said} notice was published in two daily^{newspapers and the same was also} affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter,^{the Respondentproceeded} u/ s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,^{2OO2 for taking physicalpossession of the} schedule property through advocate^{commissionerpursuant to the} orders of Ld.CJM, Karimnagar and^{challenging the said proceedings,} the Applicants filed the^present SA but^{they failedto comply with the}

¶14

Counsel itor the Applicants and Ld.Counsel for^the o .. : "+.9 l51 .. Respora.,lt. ry?L".i'rj|e material brought^{on record.}

¶15

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶16

i. wtrcther tte Applicants haue established ang ualid grounds for challenging the proceedings initiated bg the Respondent for takirry phgsical possession of the sch-edule propertA u/ s 14 of tte SARFAESI Ad, 2002 through aduocote ammissioner?

¶17

ii. To uhat relief?

¶18

Point No.lil:-

¶19

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶20

7 . The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicants availed loan from the Respondent and created mortgage against the schedule property and thereafter, committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the Respondent initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property.

¶21

The specific contention of the Applicants is that the Respondent without serving demand notice and possession notice and without following Rule 8(1)&(2) of Rules, 2002, straightaway, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissio,flaiEN{ of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 ar..d so, the said ;.F(s;"'E r' e Respondent against the schedule property *

¶22

I:^trlu-m

¶23

Pen contra, Respondent ed that admittedly, the Applicants availed r-t st the mortgage of the schedule property. 3

¶24

After availing the loan,^{the Applicants committed default in repayingthe} loan dues as^per the^{terms of the loan agreementand so, the loanaccount} was classilied as^{NPA as per the guidelinesof RBI and the Respondent} issued demand^{noticeand possession noticeto the Applicantsby duly} following the^{procedure contemplatedunderthe provisions of SARFAESI} Act, 2OO2 and^{Rulesmade thereunderand also intaking physical} possession of the schedule^{property u/s 14 of the SARFAESIAct, 2002'}

¶25

To substantiate^{their contention,the Respondentfiled material documents} along with the Reply^{frledby them'As per the said documents,it is clear} that after classifying^{the loan account of the Applicants as NPA,} Respondent issued demand^{notice dt.03.01.2023 u/s13(2) of the} SARAFAESI Act, 2oo2 and^{the said noticewas Sent to the Applicants} through Regd.Post as^{evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the} Respondent and the said^{notice was also publishedintwo daily} newspapers as evidenced by^{the copiesof paper publication filed by the} Respondent. Thus, there is^{valid service of demand notice on the} Applicants. When the^{Applicants failed to comply with the said demand} notice, the Respondent^{issuedpossessionnotice dt.26.05.2o23 u/s 13(a)} of the Act, 2oo2 and the said^{possessionnotice was sentto the Applicants} through Regd.post as evidenced^{by the copies of postal track reports filed} by the Respondent. The^{said possessionnotice waspublished in Telugu} and English daily newspapers^{as evidenced by the copies of paper} publication liled by the Respondent.^{Though the Respondent contended} that the said notice was also^{affixed on the scheduleproperty,but no} documents are liled to^{prove the same. Evenif the said notice is not affixed} on it cannbt be a ground for the^{borrower as the} affilfrute for the general public. In^{this regard,t}:e Hon'ble} xtbn inM/s Solithro Priaate LimltedVs.^The reported in 2O1 I SCC Online^Hgd I88,^has is as follows:

¶26

¶27

In thi.s regard, it mag be noted that Rule B(1) of the Rules of 2002 requires the authoised officer of the secured creditor to deliuer a possession notice, prepared os nearlg as possible in Appendix-IV to the Rules of 2002, to the borrouer and bg affinnS it on the outer door or at a conspianous place of the property. It is not in dispute that the borrower companA receiued tte possession notice doted 04.08.2012. The complaint was that it had not been affixed on the SA schedule propertA. Affuture o.if such possession notice on ttrc outer door or at a conspicuous place of the propertg is notice to the public at large. This is clear from tle contents of the statutory fonnat of tlte possession notice in Appendix-IV to tlrc Rules of 20O2. Thereunder, the borrower in particular and the public in generol are cautioned not to deal uith the propertg. In such a situation, it is not open to tle borrouer companA, hauing alreody receiued the possession notice dated 04.O8.2O12, to complain of failure on the part of ING Vgsga Bank Limited in affuing tLre notice on the premises of the secured assers. If at all, such a grieuance could be projected by a member of tle general public u.tho dealt uith the secured assets in ignorance of the possession notice. Such is not tle case presently.

¶28

Hence in the circumstances and in view of the ratio laid down by in the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the decision referred supra, it is quite clear that the Respondent has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing possession notice dt.26.O5.2O23 u/s 13(4) of the Act.

¶29

of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the secured

¶30

pproach the concerned District Magistrate or Chief

¶31

taking physical possession of the secured assets. In

¶32

the instant case, after^{issuing demand notice and possessionnotice to the} Applicants, the Respondent^{being secured creditor,approached Ld'CJM,} Karimnagar u/s 14 of the^{SARFAESIAct, 2OO2by frling Crl.M.P.No.7Ol24} for appointment of advocate^{commissionerfor taking physical possession} of the schedule^{property. Ld.CJM,karimnagar afterconsidering the} material on record, appointed^{advocate commissionerfor taking physical} possession of the schedule^property and^{the saidadvocatecommissioner} visited the schedule^{property and issued notice to the Applicants to vacate} the schedule^property and^{the said notice was admittedlyservedon the} Applicants and challenging^{the said proceedings, the Applicantshled the} present SA. However, the Applicants^{failed to comply with the conditional} stay order^passed by this^{Tribunal and accordingly, the Respondent} proceeded further and taken^{physical possessionof the schedule property} on 05.11.2024 by duly^{following the procedure. so, the said proceedings} are perfectly legal and valid.^{However, the subsequent proceedingsinitiated} by the Respondent for taking^{physical possession of the scheduleproperty} are not challenged by the Applicants^{in the presentSA.}

¶33

So, considering all the circumstances,^{Iam of the opinion that the} Applicants are not entitled to^{any reliefas there are no merits in the SA'} So, I see no^ground warranting^{interference of this Tribunal with the} proceedings initiated by the Respondent for^{takingphysicalpossessionof} the schedule property u/s 14 ofthe^{SARFAESIAct,2002. Accordingly,this} point is answered in favour ofthe Respondent^{and against the Applicants.}

¶34

Potnt No.(ti)t

¶35

24 is dismissed as there are no merits. 15. t locutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand 1 "3""3.oJ,flL4[,n. as to costs.

¶36

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned..

¶37

(Actated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, conected, signed and. pronounced. bg me in the open court on this the 3d dag of Julg, 2026)

¶38

sd/(G. GOPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

B 3 JU!. 'nlf,

Sv Agencies Usathish Usunitha v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sv Agencies Usathish Usunitha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Nandini Powerloom Industry

Indian Bank versus M/S. Auroflow Infra Realty Pvt. Ltd.

Gutha Amith Kumar versus Bank of Baroda

Bank of Baroda versus Thadakamalla Nagamani

State Bank of India versus S.R. Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus Ushasri Cotton Ginning Mills Private Limited