The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitisation Application challenging a bank's possession notice under the SARFAESI Act. The tribunal upheld the bank's procedural compliance regarding demand and possession notices, holding the application liable to be dismissed.
The Securitisation Application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THrS THE 3OrH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No.46O of 2025
Between:
s/o late Md Mahboob Khan, male, aged about 36 years, occ: business,
R/o H.No.4-55, Kandi village, Medak district - 502 285.
Applicants
Versus
ICICI Bank Limited,
Represented by its authorised officer Situated at 17-t6B-7- 1, Jyothi Arcade Main road, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy District - 501 301
Respondent
Counsel for the Parties:
Counsel for Applicants
Shri D. Raghavulu
Counsel for Respondent Sri G. Adrian Kiran Raj
Orders reserved on 05.05.2026
30.06.2026
30.06.2026
3fl JUN?n7Ffi 'l ORDER 1. The applicants'tiled Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
(sA.460/202s)
of Security InterestAct, 2002challengingthe Possessionnotice dated t2.0g.2025 issued by therespondentbank in respect of schedule property.
The applicants availed ODloan for a sum of Rs.44,60,000/- in 2021 for development of business.The applicantscreated mortgage in respect of schedulepropertytowards securityfor the said loan. The applicants werepaying interest amount regularly and requested the respondent bank to regularise theaccountby receivingthe overdue instalment. But the respondentbank classified the loan accountas NPA. The respondent bankwithout serving any prior notices as contemplated under SARFAESIAct, issued Possessionnoticedated t2.09.2025 in respect of thescheduleproperty. The demand notice andpossession notice arenot issued to the applicants.Thus the possession notice dated L2.09.2025 is not legal andvalid. Hence the SA.
(sA.460/202s)
the respondent bank issued Possession notice dated t2.Og.2O2S under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and the said notice was affixed on the schedule property and the same was published in "Indian Express and Nava Telangana" daily newspapers on 18.09.2025 and the said notice was served to the applicants. Hence, the SA is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
i) Whether the applicants have established any ground for challenging the Possession Notice dated 12.09.2025 issued by the respondent bank in respect of schedule property ?
ii) To What Relie?
Point no.i)
(sA.450/202s)
was also not served on the applicants.So the said possession notice is illegal and not binding on theapplicants.
B. The contention of the respondentbankis that after classifyingthe loan account as NPA, therespondent bank issueddemandnotice under section 13(2) and thesame was served on the applicants.The demand notice was alsopublished in English and Telugunewspapers. Thereafter the respondent bankissued possession notice dated t2.09.2025 to the applicants andthe same was duly servedand published in "Indian Express and Nava Telangana"daily newspapers. But the said Possessionnoticewas withdrawn by the respondent, Thus the relief claimed by applicantbecomes infructuous.
4
.r&
(sA.450/202s)
affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs. The said possession notice is also published in the newspapers on 18.09.2025 as evidenced by the paper publications filed by the respondent bank. Thus the respondent bank has followed the procedure laid down in Rule 8(1) and (2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules in issuing the possession notice to the Applicants. So the impugned Possession Notice dated t2.09.2025 issued by the respondent bank is perfectly legal and valid and it is binding on the Applicants. So I see no ground warranting the interference of this Tribunal with the impugned possession notice dated 16.09.2025 issued by the Respondent bank in respect of schedule property. So there are no merits in the SA, hence the SA is liable to be dismissed. So this point is answered accordingly.
Point no.ii)
(Dictated to the PA, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3Ch day of June, 2026)
sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER
, n ,1gp rnTF
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants have established any ground for challenging the Possession Notice dated 12.09.2025 issued by the respondent bank?
To what relief?
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Mohammed Nemath Khan and Mr. Md. Imran Khan
ICICI Bank Limited
Gummadigopichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
