Partly allowed

Rajesh Kumar v. Icici Home Finance

DRT4 Apr 2026SA/360/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that notices sent under Section 13(2) in the name of a deceased borrower were validly received. Actions taken after the bank learned of the death were quashed, while prior actions remained valid, with the bank to proceed against legal representatives. Dismissed claim regarding non-service of possession notice.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application disposed of. Actions taken by the bank against the deceased borrower after the bank became aware of the death are quashed. Bank to proceed against legal representatives. App

Rajesh Kumar versus Icici Home Finance — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 75

¶2

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶3

Case No. SA/360/2024

¶4

RAJESH KUMAR Vs ICICI HOME FINANCE

¶5

Date: 04.04.2026. Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:

¶6

Shri Ayush Kumar Jain, Counsel for the Applicant

¶7

Shri Vineet Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶8

In this matter, it has been vehemently argued by the counsel for the applicant that the demand notice has been issued to a dead person and according to them Sh. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal expired on 11.11.2020, whereas the demand notice has been issued subsequently.

¶9

The counsel for the respondent bank submits that at no point of time they were aware of the death of the said borrower and even when objections under 13 (3A) were submitted in those entire objections they have not disclosed about the death of the said person. Then the question arises that how the bank will come to know about the death of the borrower.

¶10

The notices were sent under Section 13(2) may be in the name of the deceased person, but they were duly received at the house by some other persons, it is the duty of the borrower parties to intimate the financial institutions about the death, they cannot sit quietly at home to take this objection at a later stage to deny the legal duties. The other borrowers have included the representatives of the deceased and having failed to comply with their duty to intimate the bank, they are not entitled for any relief or equity.

¶11

The bank came to know about the death of the borrower after filing of the Securitization Application, therefore, any action taken by the bank after filing of this Securitization Application against the dead person stands quashed and all the actions prior of filing of the Securitization Application will stand, henceforth, the bank will proceed against the legal representatives of the deceased.

¶12

This Securitization Application stands disposed of with above directions. File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.

¶13

After the orders were dictated the counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants were not even served the possession notice, but according to the counsel for the respondent bank the notices were

¶14

¶15

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶16

duly published and they were affixed at the conspicuous part of the property. Therefore, the applicants are well-aware of the possession notice which is in their hand and they are challenging the same, but they are not entitled for any relief as such in view of said position.

¶17

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶18

Rajesh Kumar v. Icici Home Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. Icici Home Finance

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

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Ms Mk Enterprises

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Bhagwan Transport and Contractor

Indian Bank versus M/S Aahna Dairy LLP

Rajnish Kumar versus Canara Bank

Sharavan Kumar Bohara versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Alka Kukkar versus Hdfc Bank