Dismissed

Sai Baba Textiles Rep by its Prop G Vinay v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT3 Mar 2026SA/75/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 17 application under the SARFAESI Act, the applicant challenged the bank's proceedings to take physical possession of mortgaged property via advocate commissioner, alleging failure to serve statutory notices. The tribunal examined the procedural history, found that demand and possession notices were duly issued and served, and held that the applicant was not entitled to any relief.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sai Baba Textiles Rep by its Prop G Vinay versus Icici Bank… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH,2C-26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.75/2025

¶5

Sai Baba Textiles Rep.by its Proprietor G.Vinay, C/o G.Nagalaxmi, aged 33 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.3-5-390, Plot No.16, Vinayaka Market, Gandhi Road, Karimnagar-SO50O1.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

ICICI Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized officer, Situated at #4110, Mythree Tower, Bommnhalli Hosur, Main Road, Bangalore-560 068

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Sn T.Snkar Reddy Counsel for Respondent : M/ s M.V.Kini

¶11

Reserued on : 19.01.2026 Pronounced on :03.O3.2026 Uploaded on :03.O3.2026

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner pq*q,suant to the orders of Ld.cJM, Karimnagar in

¶14

The Applicant availed OD facility of Rs.25 iakhs from the Respondent for development of business against the mortgage of schedule property as security for the repayment of the above loan. Due to financial problems, the Applicant could not pay some instalments and requested the Bank to regularize the account by receiving the overdue amount. But without considering the same, the Respondent illegally declared the Applicant's account as NPA. Without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent straightaway initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Karimnagar and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid. The impugned possession notice dt. 12.04.2024 was not published in two daily newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶15

The Respondent flled Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent by creating mortgage against the schedule property and thereafter committed default and so, the loan account was classilied as NPA on 16.10.2023 as per the guidelines of RBI and the Respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. Thereafter, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.20. 12.2023 and possession notice dt.08.04.2o25 to the Applicant by duly following the procedure. Subsequently, the Respondent proceeded u/s l4 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Karimnagar in Crl.M.P.No.173/24 and there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶16

Heard Ld, Counsel ' fqr the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondeht. Perused the rnatqlial brought on record. i" :rii 03 flrB 5. Now the points thdt fo-r consideration are n:

¶17

¶18

uhether tlrc Applicant has established ang ualid grounds for challenging the proceedings initiated bg tle Respondent for taking phy sical possession of the schedule propertA u/ s 1 4 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 through aduocate commissioner?

¶19

ii. To uthat relief ?

¶20

Point IVo.(if:-

¶21

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶22

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent and created equitable mortgage in respect ofthe schedule property to secure the said loan and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues.

¶23

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and without following Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, initiated proceedings for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner u/s l4 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and so, the said proceedings initiated by the Respondent against the schedule property are null and void.

¶24

g. Per contra, Respondent contdnded that they have duly followed the procedure contemplated under the ip.rovisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing alllre statutory notices to the Applicant I

¶25

and also ln ta,king$[y$10fl1 qp5rsession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the 2002.

¶26

To substantiate their contention, Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply frled by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that after classifying the loan account of the Applicant as NpA, the Respondent issued demand notice d,t.2o.12.2023 u/ s 1 3(2) of the SARAFAESI Act,2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others through Regd.Post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent. When the Applicant failed to comply with the said notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.08.04.2024 u/s 13(4) of the Act,2OO2 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication hled by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs hled by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has duly followed the procedure as contemplated u/r S(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in issuing the impugned possession notice dt.08.04.2024 u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act,2002 for taking possession of the schedule property. So, the demand notice and possession notice issued by the Respondent are perfectly legal and valid.

¶27

As per the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, after issuance of possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, the secured creditor is at liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured asset. In the instant case, after issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Respondent being secured creditor, approached ld.CJM, Karimnagar u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by filing Crl.M.P.No. 173124 for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Ld.CJM, Karimnagar after considering the material on record, appointed advocate commissioner for taking p.$,y$eal possession of ihe schedule property and the said advocate commissioner fsgued notice tb the Applicant to vacate the schedule property ;ra ,#.{rffflldlftE -a" admittedty served on the Applicant.

¶28

¶29

so, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Applicant is not entitled to any relief as there are no merits in the SA. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the proceedings initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2002. Accordingry, this point is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶30

Polnt No,(11)t

¶31

In the result, SA75l25 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶32

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

¶33

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶34

(Actated to the P.S, transcribed b,g her, anected., signed. and. pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 3"1 daA of March, 2026)

¶35

sd/(G. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶36

Itl llB

Sai Baba Textiles Rep by its Prop G Vinay v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sai Baba Textiles Rep by its Prop G Vinay v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Vigneswara Textiles

Supriya Bandam versus Cholamandalam Investment

Naresh Dairy Farm versus Protium Finance Limited

Bank of India versus Mrs. Zeba Parveen

State Bank of India versus Mr. P. Sudheer Reddy

State Bank of India versus M/S. Maatha Foods Industries