Allowed

Chethi Raj Kumar v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT13 Aug 2026SA/344/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitisation Application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant's petition to set aside the Respondent Bank's proceedings for taking physical possession of a schedule property. The court found the Bank failed to follow due process under the SARFAESI Act and Rules, specifically by not filing a reply or producing documents to prove compliance.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings for taking physical possession of the Schedule Property pursuant to orders in Crl.MP.No. 45/2026 set aside.

Chethi Raj Kumar versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL_ I AT HYDERABAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1 3TII DAY OF AUGUST. 2026

¶4

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

sA.No.344/2026

¶6

Sri. Chethi Raj Kumar, S/o Laxminarayanal Occ: Business, R/o H. No. 25-6-254, Vidyanagar, Arya Nagar Kazipet Mandal, Hanmakonda Urban, Warangal District-506 003, Cell: 7337403569, E-Mail : [email protected]

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

ICICI Bank, Rep. by its authorized Officer, Situtaed at 4/10, Mythree Tower, Bommanhalli Hoser Main Road, Bangalore - 560 068

¶10

.... Respondent

¶11

Counsel for the Parties :

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. Ragharrulu Counsel for the Respondent : Exparte Reserued on : 12.08.2026 Pronounced on : 13.08.2026 Upload in utebsite 13.08.2026

.r 1 _1 ru$ m26 *

(5A.No.34412026)

ORDER

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.1 7 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security lnterest Acl, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002) challenging the steps initiated by the Respondents for taking physical^possession of the Schedule Property through Advocate Commissioner notice dated 19.05.2026 pursuant to the orders in Crl.MP.No. 4512026 on the file of Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate , Hanmakonda under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶17

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicant availed Mortgage Loan of Rs,12,29,16'l/- against the Mortgage Schedule property. While matter stood thus, the Respondent bank is trying to take physical possession of the schedule property through the Advocate Commissioner Notice dated 19.05.2026 in Crl.MP.No. 58/2025. lt^is submitted that the Respondent bank failed to follow the due^process of law regarding schedule properties of the application which is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Rule made thereunder. The respondent Bank failed to issue/serve the Demand notice and^Possession Notice to the applicant. The Possession notice was not affixed on the schedule property and not^published in two leading daily newspapers and thereby not followed the procedure^prescribed under rule 8(1) and^(2). Hence prayed to set aside all the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 Hence the SA.

¶18

¶19

t, no representation, called absent and hence on 12.08 2026 1 3^{AUc 7[6}

(sA.No.34412026)

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and^perused the^{material broughton} record.

¶24

Now the points that arise for consideration^is

¶25

i) Whether the Applicant has esfab/lshed any valid^{groundsfor setting} aside the measures taken by the Respondent^Bank for^{taking physical}

¶26

possesslon of the Schedule Propefty through Advocate Commissioner notice dated 19.05.2026^pursuant to the orders in Crl.MP.No.^45/2026 on the file of Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate , Hanmakonda^under SARFAES/ Act, 2002?

¶27

iil To what relieQ

¶28

Point No.fi)

¶29

b. The Applicant filed the present SA for setting aside the^proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank for taking^{physical possession} of the Schedule Property through Advocate Commissioner notice dated 19.05.2026^pursuant to the orders in Crl.MP.No. 4512026 on the file of Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate , Hanmakonda. But, the Respondent Bank who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule^property, failed to^justify their action by filing Reply and producing necessary material documents to^prove that the Bank has strictly followed the^provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder while proceeding against the secured asset. The evinced any interest in contesting the matter even after nities and failed to file their Reply and material s of the Applicant ln the absence of any the Respondent Bank has duly complied with FAESI Act and Rules, 2002 while enforcing

¶30

¶31

(sA.No.34412026)

¶32

the security interest over the application schedule property by the respondent bank, lhold that the Applicant has made a case for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank for taking physical possession of the Schedule Property through Advocate Commissioner notice dated 15.05.2026 pursuant to the orders in Crl.MP.No. 4512026 on the file of Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate , Hanmakonda and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.

¶33

Point No.(ii):-

¶34

ln the result, SA No. 34412026 is allowed.

¶35

Accordingly, the present Securitisation Application is allowed by setting aside the proceedings for taking physical possession of the Schedule Property pursuant to the orders in Crl.MP.No. 4512026 on the file of Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate , Hanmakonda. However, the Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed afresh against the SA schedule property to recover their dues by duly following the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules thereunder.

¶36

o The lnterlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶37

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶38

transcibed bA her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me m dag of August, 2026).

¶39

1 3 rljc 2[2[
(&rf-#'

¶40

sd/-
(G. GOPICHANDI
PRESIDING OFFICER
ssl. RagGtrer oAf >-t-c
DRT- i tt.ft r-, i1l'd.

Chethi Raj Kumar v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chethi Raj Kumar 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

Canara Bank versus Ms Ps Textiles

Mr Avv Narayana and another versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus Revanth Textiles

State Bank of India versus Sri Krishna Filling Station

Bank of India versus M Ramesh Chary

Central Bank of India versus Sri Srinivasa Vastralayam