Allowed

Annapoorna Traders v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT13 Jul 2026SA/578/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed a Section 17 application challenging a share of property possession notice. The holder bank failed to establish it followed due process under the Security Act rules. The order quashed the Advocate Commissioner notice and set aside related measures.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application allowed by setting aside the Advocate Commissioner notice dated 08.12.2025 in Crl.MP.No.169/2025 issued under SARFAESI Act against the schedule property.

Annapoorna Traders versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.578 ot 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

Annapoorna Traders, 19- 183, Narsampet, Warangal district, Represented by its ProPrietor Kodakandla Nageshwar^Rao

¶7

Smt Kodakandla Andalamma,
w/o Sri Kodakandla Komaraiah,
aged about 75 Years, female,
R/o H.No.19-183, Narsampet,
Applicants
Warangal district.
VERSUS
ICICI Bank Limited,
Branch office at NarsamPet,
ffilria;:ji#Fr:l:i:17,ffiS$tCICt gank Towers, Bandra..lr"ii * -q$
Kurla complex, Mumbai- ar9,O3p51-: Si
officer ..- Respondent
Represented by its
t3JUt2m
Counsel for the Parties:
Counsel for APplicant Reddy
Respondent Exparte

¶8

ORDER

¶9

The applicants^{filed securitisation Application under section17 of the} securitisation and^{Reconstructionof Financial Assetsand Enforcement}

¶10

(SA.No.s781202s)

¶11

of Security Interest Act, 2002 challenging the^{steps initiated by the} Respondent for taking^{physicalpossession} of^{the schedule property} through Advocate Commissioner^{notice dated08.12.2025in} Crl.MP.No.169l2O25 on the^file of^{Hon'be CJM, Warangaldistrict under} SARFAESI Act.

¶12

The case of the^{applicantsin brief is that applicant No'1 which is a} proprietorship firm represented by^{its proprietor/applicantno'2} availed credit facilities^{from the respondentbank to an extent of} Rs.220.00lakhs.Theapplicantswereregularinrepaymentstowards principal and interest to the^{respondentbank. while matterstood} thus, the applicants^{received a demand notice dated 07'02'2024 and} subsequently received^{a notice dated OB'L2'2025 whereinthe} Advocate commissioner^{in crl.Mp.169/2025 issued vacate notice for} vacatingtheschedulepropertywithinl5days.ItisfurtherSubmitted that even after^{receiving substantial amountfromapplicants,the} respondentbankwastryingtotakephysicalpossessionofresidential houseofapplicants.Itissubmittedthattherespondentbankfailed to follow the due^{process of law- regarding scheduleproperty of} application whjslT,.jp'lllegknd^{arbitrary and in violation of SARFAESI} /'+.<S-t nct andTu,tei.hiatgn;mffi^{rhe respondenr bank failed to issue/} .".r. #3ib"rand"'hbti.e and e&session^{notice and respondentbank} * also ,"1"1',,J'J["ffi notice at the^conspicuous Place^of

¶13

(SA. No.s78l202s)

¶14

the property and also failed to publish in two leading newspapers and thereby not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 8(1) and (2). Hence prayed to set aside all the measures initiated by respondent bank under SARFAESI Act,2002. Hence the SA.

¶15

Notice served to Respondent. Respondent called absent and set exparte.

¶16

Heard the arguments of Applicant Counsel.

¶17

Now the point for consideration is

¶18

i) Whether the applicants have established any valid ground for setting aside the Advocate Commissioner notice dated 08.12.2025 in Crl.MP.No.169/2025 on the file of Hon'be Chief ludicial Magistrate, Warangal district against the schedule property?

¶19

ii) To What RelieP

¶20

Point no.i)

¶21

As stated supra, the Respondent remained ex-parte. In the absence of any proof with respect to the following of due procedure as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Rules made

¶22

ng the security interest over the application d. edule the Respondent Bank, the present

¶23

Securlitpa\ian ffi lica*i has to be allowed by setting aside the er notice dated 08.L2.2025 in 3

¶24

(sA.No.s78l202s)

¶25

Crl.MP.No.169/2025 on the file of Hon'be ClM, Warangal district against the application schedule property. So this point is answered accordingly.

¶26

Point No.ii)

¶27

In the result, the present Securitisation Application is allowed by

¶28

setting aside the Advocate Commissioner notice dated 08.12.2025 in Crl.MP.No.169/2025 on the file of Hon,be CJM, Warangal district issued under SARFAESI Act, 2002, against the application schedule property.

¶29

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

¶30

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶31

(Dj:tated t9 the PA, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of July, 2026)

¶32

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶33

^iRUdc
7y4
fi gA*
DRT.I. I1YOSRABAD,

¶34

Annapoorna Traders v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annapoorna Traders 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

M Venkataramana versus Sudha Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Thirupathi Kurva

Central Bank of India versus M/S. Sanabill Enterprises

Mr Ravikanti Ashok versus Shriram Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Maha Laxmi Powerlooms Industry

Canara Bank versus M/S. Kanaka Maha Laxmi Powerlooms Industry