Dismissed

Sri Chappali Ravikumar v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT28 Jul 2026SA/504/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application seeking to set aside measures initiated by the respondent bank. The Tribunal found no infraction of procedural provisions regarding notices and publication, concluding the bank strictly complied with the Act and Rules.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application No. 504 OF 2024 dismissed in limine.

Sri Chappali Ravikumar versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2BTH DAY OF ]ULY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B,Com, L.LB, (HonS.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Appllcation No. 504 OF 2024

¶5

Sri. Chappali Ravikumar, S/o. C. Ramaiah, Gender: Male, Aged about 44 Yearc, Occ: Employee, R/o. H. No. 22l103-A, Vasanthapeta, Back of SBI, Vasanthapeta, Proddatur, Proddatur, Cuddapah, Andhra Pradesh, 516360

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized officer, Situated at 4lLO, Mythree Tower, Bommanahall, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore - 560 068.

¶9

.....Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. Raghavulu Devalla Counsel for Respondent : Mr. G. Adrian Kiran Raj

¶11

-:ORDER:-

¶12

The^present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial^Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^("Act" hereinafter for short) to set aside all the measures initiated by the respondent bank under the Act, including the action of respondent bank from taking physical possession of the SA Schedule Property via advocate commissioner notice dated 10.02,2025 in Crl.M.P.No.15 of 2025 on the file of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate Cum Principal Assistant Sessions

Ow**

Page 2 of 5

SA No. s04l2024

Judge at Kadapa in pursuance to the possession notice dated 30.10.2024 under section 13(a) of the Act.

¶17

The averments of the application, briefly, are that applicant had availed a loan facility of Rs.40,00,000/- from the respondent Bank by mortgaging the secured residential property, and though he had been regularly servicing the loan, financial difficulties and health issues resulted in certain defaults. It is contended that despite requesting the respondent Bank to regularize the loan account by accepting the overdue installments, the account was arbitrarily classified as NPA in violation of RBI guidelines and measures under the SARFAESI Act were initiated without considering his request. The applicant further alleges that the statutory notices issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act were neither duly served nor effected in accordance with the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, (hereinafter "Rules" for short) inasmuch as the possession notice was not properly affixed or published as mandated. It is further asserted that the respondent Bank failed to consider his objections, suppressed the pendency of the present S.A. while obtaining orders under Section 14 from the competent Magistrate, and proceeded to take coercive steps against the secured residential property in violation of the principles of natural justice. The applicant submits that the value of the secured asset is far in excess of the outstanding dues, expresses willingness to clear the overdue installments if reasonable time is granted, and seeks setting aside of the measures initiated under the SARFAESI Act and all consequential proceedings.

¶18

The Respondent Bank filed reply statement along with documents. The averments thereof, briefly, are that present SA is barred by limitation, having been filed beyond the prescribed period of 45 days from the possession notice dated 30.10.2024 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, and is thereforg liable to be

¶19

Page 3 of 5

¶20

SA No. s04l2024

¶21

dismissed in limine. It is asserted that the respondent had strictly complied with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, Rules, 2002, and RBI guidelines, and that the applicant neither approached the Bank for regularization nor was entitled to any moratorium benefit. The respondent further contends that the proceedings under Section 14 were lawfully initiated before the Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadapa, culminating in the issuance of the Vacate Notice dated 10.05.2025, and that physical possession was sought only in accordance with the orders passed by the competent Magistrate through an Advocate Commissioner. Accordingly, the Respondent prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant reported that orders may be passed based on records. Learned counsel for respondent reported no oral arguments but filed written arguments. Perused the written arguments filed by the respondent and also perused the material brought on record.

¶23

Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank, denied the averments made by the Applicant, and placed reliance on the documents annexed thereto. It was contended that the loan account was rightly classified as a NPA in accordance with the RBI guidelines and that all measures under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, 2002 were initiated after strict compliance with the statuto.ry provisions. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the SA.

¶24

The points for consideratlon are as follows : -

¶25

Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to

¶26

quash any of the measures initiated by the respondent

I ...r

Page 4 of 5

SA No. 50412024

ii) To what relief?

Point No.(i):

The Respondent Bank filed material documents along with reply statement as proof of compliance of due procedure of law. Pages 1 to 9 of the material^paper annexed with the reply statement are the Photostat copies of postal receipts and publication of the same in English and Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers on 09.07.2024 proving service of demand notice. Similarly, Pages 10 to 19 are the Photostat copies of postal receipt of Possession Notice,^photographs as proof of affixture on secured assets and^publication of the same in English and Telugu (vernacular language) newspapers on 31.10.2025. The documents^placed on record by the Respondent Bank remain undisputed. In view of sufficient^proofplace on record, I find no infraction of section 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act and Rules 3, B(1) & 8(2) of the Rules, 2002. As a secured creditor the Respondent Bank initiated the SARFESI proceedings, which cannot be categorized as illegal or arbitrary.

¶33

B. In view of above observation, it is concluded that the applicant failed to establish any ground to set aside the measure from taking physical possession by the Respondent Bank under the Act, 2002 against the SA schedule property and accordingly the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

Point No.Gi):

¶35

, 'In,the result, the Securitisation Application faifiand is hereby dismissed

¶36

Page 5 of 5

¶37

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, stand closed.

¶38

No order as to costs.

¶39

12, Communicate a copy of this order to the parties

¶40

upload in the official website.

¶41

(Typed .to my dictation by the Steno., corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th doy of Juty, 2026).

¶42

(RAMESHW PRESIDING

Sri Chappali Ravikumar v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chappali Ravikumar 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

Kallakuntla Janardhan versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Vinayaka Cold Storage versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Sri.Ashish Rahul Bhupathi and others versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

M/s. Icici Bank Limited. versus Nunavath Pentya

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Hitha Net India Pvt. Ltd.

The Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Jaya Shakthi Rail Mech.