Dismissed

P Manikandan v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT12 Jan 2026SA/396/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debtors Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application filed by a home loan borrower challenging the bank's issuance of a possession notice and NPA classification. The court found that the bank established a pattern of regular compliance with the SARFAESI Act's procedural requirements. The application was dismissed as the borrower failed to prove any illegalities in the measures ta

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed; the Sec. 13(2) Demand Notice and Sec. 13(4) Possession Notice were held valid.

P Manikandan versus Icici Bank Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

SA No.396/2023

12.01.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 396 of 2023

¶8

P. Manikandan S/o T. Parthasarathy No.63, Kanthan Street Periya Natham Chengalpattu – 603 002. ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

The Authorized Officer, ICICI Bank Ltd., Arihant Insight, Plot No.24, Block No.1, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 058 …Respondent Counsels on record / appeared:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. K. Venkateshwaran Counsel for Respondent : M/s. Kvp. Deepak Raj ORDER ON SA No.396/2023

¶12

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 01.06.2023 under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short the ‘Act’) challenging the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶13

The applicant has challenged the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 18.04.2023 and the outstanding amount due as per Possession notice is Rs.62,91,957/-

SA No.396/2023

12.01.2026

3. Pleadings of the applicant:

¶18

3.1 Applicant has availed two Home Loan facility of Rs.24,82,797/- vide loan agreement bearing No.LBCHE00002080271 and second Home loan facility of Rs.35,50,916/vide loan agreement bearing No.LBCHE00002080272. In order to secure the said facilities, applicant had furnished the Flat properties as security for the aforesaid facility availed by the applicant, for the due repayment of the same.

¶19

3.2 The applicant alone had availed the aforesaid loan facility, and nowhere in the loan facility the applicant’s wife stood as a co-borrower. However, the respondent had issued a notice stating that the applicant’s wife was a co-borrower, but the statement of account furnished by the bank itself states that the applicant’s wife is not a co-borrower.

¶20

3.3 It is submitted that the applicant was regular in their repayment of loan even during the covid period and had serviced the aforesaid loan with great difficulties. The applicant was unable to comply with the unmindful and unlawful demands made by the builder who made a false complaint against the Applicant, as a result of which the Applicant lost his job and was not in a position to pay the EMIs without any default.

¶21

3.4 The applicant had paid 69 installments to the tune of Rs.17,40,900/- for the loan facility No.LBCHE00002080271 and the applicant has to pay remaining loan amount of Rs.25,74,239/- as on 20.09.2022. The Applicant further states that he had paid 69 installment of Rs.24,91,147/- for the loan facility No.LBCHE00002080272 and the

SA No.396/2023

12.01.2026

applicant has to pay remaining loan amount of Rs.37,17,718/- as on 20.09.2022 and the total outstanding amount is Rs.62,91,957/- as of the above date.

¶26

3.5 Due to circumstances beyond his control, the applicant is unable to pay Rs.62,91,957/- to regularize the loan facilities. The respondent bank without considering the prompt payment made by the applicant had declared the loan account was classified as NPA without following the procedures under the SARFAESI Act and RBI guidelines.

¶27

3.6 Further, the Respondent had issued Demand notice under Section 13(2) on 20.09.2022 and failed to issue the Section 13(4) Possession Notice to the applicant and directly issued the vacation notice dated 21.04.2023 and pre-sale notice. Pre-Sale notice appended copy of Symbolic Possession notice dated 18.04.2023, came to be served upon the Applicant on 26.04.2023.

¶28

3.7 In the grounds, it is contended that the classification of loan account as NPA is against the RBI guidelines. No notice as required under the Act was affixed on the property by the respondent Bank, and without complying with the statutory requirements, the respondent ought not to have invoked the provisions of the Act. The Possession Notice is not issued by the Authorized Officer. Further various payment made into the applicants’ and account have not been duly credited and failed to follow the procedure under the provisions of the Act and Rules.

SA No.396/2023

12.01.2026

3.8 The Symbolic Possession Notice dated 18.04.2023 was not served upon the applicant, not affixed on the property and not taken publication of the notice in one English daily and Tamil daily as per the Act. Hence prays to set aside the Possession Notice dated 18.04.2023.

¶33

4. Objections of the respondent bank:

¶34

4.1 The bank has filed detailed counter denies all the averments made in the present SA. It is the case of the bank, the applicant along with his wife have availed two Home loans for a sum of Rs.24,81,000/- on 29.03.2014 vide loan agreement No.LBCHE00002080271 and for Rs.35,50,916/on 29.03.2014 vide loan agreement No.LBCHE00002080272, for purchasing two Flats bearing No.F1 and F2, in the First Floor, at Door No.9 part (South East Part), Ballard Street, Park Lane Street, Purasaiwalkam, Chennai.

¶35

4.2 The applicant as the Borrower and his wife Udaya Suriya as the CoBorrower availed the two loans and have executed the necessary loan documents and agreed to repay the loan amount in equated monthly installment along with respective rate of interest. The Loan Agreement dated 29.03.2014 was executed by the applicant and his wife.

¶36

4.3 To secure the credit facilities availed, Mr. Manikandan-the applicant has mortgaged his property by way of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 09.04.2014 which is registered as Doc.No.1338 of 2014 and Doc.No.1336 of 2014 on 09.04.2014 at SRO Sembiam.

SA No.396/2023

12.01.2026

4.4 As the payment made by the applicant was irregular and failed to maintain the loan accounts in spite of several requests and reminders. Hence, the account was classified as NPA on 30.11.2020. Further, as per the Statement of Accounts dated 15.03.2024, the applicant is liable to pay an overdue amount of Rs.11,07,378/- in respect of Loan I and Rs.15,84,537/- in respect of Loan II. The Outstanding amount as on 15.03.2024 in respect of Loan I is Rs.30,07,098/- and in respect of Loan II is Rs.43,34,598/-.

¶41

4.5 The respondent bank, after classifying the loan account as NPA has initiated measures and issued Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 20.09.2022 calling upon the applicants to repay a sum of Rs.62,91,957/as on 20.09.2022 within 60 days from the date of issue of Demand Notice. The applicant received the Demand Notice, however did not made any representation nor raised any objections to the demand made and also failed to repay the amount due. The service of the said Demand Notice to the applicants was completed in accordance with Rule 3(1) of the SIE Rules. The Demand Notice is also published in two leading newspapers one in English “The New Indian Express” and another in Tamil “Dinamani” both dated 21.12.2022.

¶42

4.6 Subsequently, the respondent bank has proceeded further and issued Possession Notice dated 18.04.2023 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Possession Notice is also published in two Newspapers one in English “The New Indian Express” and another one in Tamil “Dinamani’ both dated 22.04.2023 within 7 days from the date of the

SA No.396/2023

12.01.2026

Possession Notice. The notice is also affixed on the property with a photograph.

¶47

4.7 The bank have taken the Symbolic Possession of the property on 18.04.2023 and sent the Vacation Notice on 21.04.2023 i.e., after taking symbolic possession of the property. The loan was sanctioned in the year 2014, and due to the non-payment the account was declared as NPA on 30.11.2020 and even after a lapse of 4 years, the Applicant has not come forward to discharge their liabilities, hence the bank has proceeded against its secured asset.

¶48

4.8 It is contended that the notice were duly signed by the Authorized Officer of the bank as per SARFAESI Act and for clarification the contact number of the manager related to the Loan Accounts have also been mentioned in the Notice. The Bank has followed all the measures as required and hence, the respondent bank prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶49

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of the case.

¶50

5.1 It is manifest from the records that the applicant along with his wife have availed two Home loans from the respondent bank for a sum of Rs.24,81,000/on 29.03.2014 vide loan agreement No.LBCHE00002080271 and for Rs.35,50,916/- on 29.03.2014 vide loan agreement No.LBCHE00002080272. To secure the credit facilities availed, applicant has executed the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 09.04.2014 vide Doc.No.1336/2014 which is produced at

SA No.396/2023

12.01.2026

Pg.43-46 of counter, and another Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 09.04.2014 vide Doc.No.1338/2014 which is registered in the office of the Sub Registrar Sembiam in favoring the respondent bank.

¶55

5.2 In fact, the applicant does not dispute the availing of the facilities and the mortgage of the property including the default in the repayment. Due to continuous default in the repayment, the loan account of the applicant was classified as NPA on 30.11.2020.

¶56

5.3 It is seen that the Statement of Accounts dated 15.03.2024, the applicant is liable to pay an overdue amount of Rs.11,07,378/- in respect of Loan I and Rs.15,84,537/- in respect of Loan II. The Outstanding amount as on 15.03.2024 in respect of Loan I is Rs.30,07,098/- and in respect of Loan II is Rs.43,34,598/-.

¶57

5.4 Subsequent to classification of the account as NPA, the bank had issued S.13(2) Demand Notice dated 20.09.2022 claiming an amount of Rs.62,91,957/- due as on 20.09.2022 along with other charges. The respondent sent the demand notice by Speed Post (with A.D) produced at Pg.145 of counter. The Demand Notice is published in two newspapers one in English “The New Indian Express” and another one in Tamil “Dinamani” both dated 21.12.2022. In spite of receipt of Sec.13(2) demand notice as the borrower and the guarantor did not liquate the liability.

¶58

5.5 The respondent issued the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice on 18.04.2023, sent by Speed Post as per the dispatch proof produced at

SA No.396/2023

12.01.2026

Pg.158 of counter. The Possession Notice is published in two newspapers

¶63

one in English “The New Indian Express” and another one in Tamil “Dinamani” both dated 22.04.2023 and affixture of Possession Notice produced at Pg.159 evidences due service of Possession Notice.

¶64

5.6 Though the applicant has challenged the Sec.13(4) possession notice have not pointed out any illegalities in the measure taken by the bank in enforcing the security available to them. On the other hand, the respondent bank have established the procedures as contemplated under the Act in enforcing the security with supporting documents as required

¶65

under the Act. Hence it is concluded that the Sec.13(2) Demand Notice dated 20.09.2022 and Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 18.04.2023 are valid notices issued by the secured creditor as per the procedure as described under the Act and rules made there under.

¶66

5.7 For the foregoing reasons, the present SA is dismissed. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost. Sd/-

¶67

(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶68

(Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 12^th day of January, 2026)

¶69

ANNEXURES

¶70

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶71

Sl.	Description of Documents	Document
No.		No.
1.	Demand Notice dated 20.09.2022.	A-1
2.	Letters issued by Applicant to Respondent dated 25.04.2022.	A-2

SA No.396/2023

12.01.2026

3.	Letters issued by Applicant to Respondent 30.05.2022.	dated	A-3
4.	Letters issued by Applicant to Respondent 14.06.2022.	dated	A-4
5.	Letters issued by Applicant to Respondent 30.08.2022.	dated	A-5
6.	Letters issued by Applicant to Respondent 28.04.2023.	dated	A-6
7.	Letters issued by Applicant to Respondent 15.05.2023.	dated	A-7
8.	Vacation Notice dated 21.04.2023.		A-8
9.	Possession Notice dated 18.04.2023.		A-9
10.	Pre-Sale Notice dated 21.04.2023.		A-10
11.	Post Symbolic Intimation to Borrower 21.04.2023.	dated	A-11

¶76

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶77

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Loan Agreement executed by the Applicant along with his wife dated 29.03.2014.	R-1
2.	Loan Agreement executed by the Applicant along with his wife dated 29.03.2014.	R-2
3.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Registered as Document No.1336/2014 dated 09.04.2014.	R-3
4.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Registered as Document No.1338/2014 dated 09.04.2014.	R-4
5.	Statement of Accounts Loan I dated 10.04.2024.	R-5
6.	Statement of Accounts Loan II dated 10.04.2024.	R-6
7.	Demand Notice dated 20.09.2022.	R-7
8.	Paper Publication of Demand Notice dated 21.12.2022.	R-8
9.	Possession Notice dated 18.04.2023.	R-9
10.	Photo affixture taken on the date of physical possession	R-10
11.	Paper Publication of Possession Notice dated 20.09.2022.	R-11

¶78

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶79

SCHEDULE “A” (whole Property)

¶80

Item No.1 (Owned by first principal Mr. Chandrasekar (a) D. Sonna Doniel Regd. As D/No.2315 of 1993 SRO Sembium

SA No.396/2023

12.01.2026

All that piece and parcel of land with demolished building situated at Chennai Corporation limits, Purasawalkam Taluk, Chennai – 600 011, Siruvallur Village, Poongalane Park lane street, Door No.9 part (South east part) comprised in Survey No.107/1A2A&29/1A1 Bounded on the

¶85

North and East by : Remaining part of Door No.9 and common passage

¶86

lane

¶87

South by : Nagendrans Property

¶88

West by : Corporation pumping station

¶89

Admeasuring Total extent of 1050 sq.ft of land T.S.No.8, Block No.1 Part and TS.No.57, Block No.1

¶90

Item No.2 (owned by I.D. Samson Daniel Regd. As D/No.6906 of 2002 SRO Sembium)

¶91

All that piece and parcel of land with demolished building situated at Chennai Corporation limits, Purasawalkam Taluk, Chennai – 600 011, Siruvallur Village, Poongalane (As per House tax assessment Ballard Street) Park lane street, Door No.9 part (South east part) comprised in Survey No.107/1A2A1&29/1A1 T.S.No.8/1 Part 57 part, Block No.1 Bounded on the

¶92

North by : Owned by common way

¶93

South by : Door No.10

¶94

East by : Poonga Lane Street

¶95

West by : Owned by common way and Mr. D. Chandrasekar (a) Sanna Daniels property

¶96

And having a linear measurement of

¶97

Northern side East to West : 34 feet 9 inches

¶98

Southern side East to West : 34 feet 3 inches

¶99

Eastern side North to South : 33 feet 0 inches

¶100

Western side North to South : 34 feet 6 inches

¶101

Admeasuring Total extent of 1164 sq.ft of land with old demolished House. EB, Water and Sewarage connection thereon, the property within

SA No.396/2023

12.01.2026

the registration District of North Chennai and sub registration District of Sembium.

¶106

SCHEDULE “B”

¶107

349 Sq.Ft. undivided share in the land right, title and interest ownership in Schedule-C property the Total UDS cost is Rs.10,47,000/(Rupees Ten Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand only).

¶108

SCHEDULE “C”

¶109

Flat No.F1 measuring 838 Sq.Ft. plinth area Built up area including super floor area in the First Floor in the property detailed in Schedule B above.

¶110

Property 2:

¶111

SCHEDULE “A” (Whole Property)

¶112

Item No.1 (Owned by first principal Mr. Chandrasekar (a) D. Sonna Doniel Regd. As D/No.2315 of 1993 SRO Sembium

¶113

¶114

Bounded on the

¶115

North and East by : Remaining part of Door No.9 and common passage

¶116

lane

¶117

South by : Nagendrans Property West by : Corporation pumping station

¶118

Admeasuring Total extent of 1050 sq.ft of land T.S.No.8, Block No.1 Part and TS.No.57, Block No.1

¶119

Item No.2 (owned by I.D. Samson Daniel Regd. As D/No.6906 of 2002 SRO Sembium)

SA No.396/2023

12.01.2026

Bounded on the

North by : Owned by common way South by : Door No.10 East by : Poonga Lane Street

¶126

West by : Owned by common way and Mr. D. Chandrasekar (a) Sanna Daniels property

¶127

And having a linear measurement of

¶128

Northern side East to West : 34 feet 9 inches Southern side East to West : 34 feet 3 inches Eastern side North to South : 33 feet 0 inches Western side North to South : 34 feet 6 inches

¶129

Admeasuring Total extent of 1164 sq.ft of land with old demolished House. EB, Water and Sewarage connection thereon, the property within the registration District of North Chennai and sub registration District of Sembium.

¶130

SCHEDULE “B”

¶131

230 Sq.Ft. undivided share in the land right, title and interest ownership in Schedule-C property the Total UDS cost is Rs.6,90,000/(Rupees Six Lakh Ninety Thousand only).

¶132

SCHEDULE “C”

¶133

Flat No.F2 measuring 569 Sq.Ft. plinth area Built up area including super floor area in the First Floor in the property detailed in Schedule B above.

¶134

Sd/-

¶135

(S.V.GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

P Manikandan v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Manikandan 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

Karur Vysya Bank versus Munirathinam

Punjab National Bank versus Sugumar

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s.Niki Impex

Punjab and Sind Bank versus M/S Akila Trading Corporation

Bank of Baroda versus Kirubanandan

Ms Preethi Medicals Rep By its Sole Proprietor Mr G Ashok and Mrs a Lavanya versus Karur Vysya Bank