Remanded

Union Bank of India v. Mangala Kesava Rao and Anr.

DRAT25 Jul 2025REGULAR APPEAL/217/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Tribunal dismissed the appeal against a DRT order allowing a securitization application. The Tribunal found that title disputes and the identity of properties are incidental issues requiring determination by the DRT, which had failed to decide them. The appeal was remanded for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to the DRT, Visakhapatnam to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Union Bank of India versus Mangala Kesava Rao and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: KOLKATA CAMP COURT AT VISAKHAPATNAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶3

Appeal No.217 of 2018

¶4

(Arising out of SA No.64/2016, In DRT, Visakhapatnam)

¶5

The Authorized officer and Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch, D.No.26-15-150 Andhra Bank Building Changalraopeta, Visakhapatnam-530001.

¶6

…….Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Mangala Kesava Rao, W/o Kesava Rao, D.No.49-54-7/2, Plot No.48, RK Nagar, Balayyashastry Layout, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.

¶9

M/s Brihant Infratech Pvt. Ltd Rep. By its Managing Director, Koneni Venkateswara Rao, D.No.205, 1^st Floor, GVK Plaza, Seethampeta, Visakhapatnam.

¶10

…..Respondents

¶11

Mr. Soudip Pal Choudhuri Learned counsel for the Appellant (Through VC) Mr. Debasish Chakraborty Learned counsel for the Respondents (Through VC)

¶12

JUDGMENT : Dated 25^th July, 2025

¶13

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:

¶14

Heard the Ld. Counsel of both parties. Perused the record. This Appeal has arisen against the Judgment and order dt.21^st August, 2017 passed by Ld. DRT, Vishakhapatnam in SA No. 115 of 2014.

¶15

As per pleadings of the parties, the respondents herein preferred a Securitization application under Sec.17 of SARFAESI Act on the ground that they are the owners of the property in question, which is being sold by the secured creditor in the SARFAESI proceedings. It is stated that they purchased the property on the basis of registered general power of attorney in the year 1996. Subsequently in the year 2011 Respondent No.2 in the SA created security interest in favour of the secured creditor. Although they are securitized appellants and filed a civil suit No.25 of 2014 before the Civil Court where they got an injunction order. They are

¶16

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶17

the owner and in possession of the secured assets and have not created any security interests about the security creditor.

¶18

The respondent filed the reply stating that in the year 2011, Respondent No.2 in the SA namely M/s Brihant Infratech Pvt Ltd through its Managing Director Koneni Venkateswara Rao created the security interest in favour of the secured creditor. Thereafter the account became irregular and was classified as NPA. Even proceedings under the Securitization Act was initiated. Securitization Appellants have no local standi.

¶19

The Ld. DRT after recording the submissions made by both parties, arrived at the conclusion that the securitization appellants have got title against the secured assets and allowed this securitisation application.

¶20

I have heard the Learned Counsel of both parties and perused the record.

¶21

Ld. Counsel of the applicant would submit that the securitization appellants who are respondent No. 1 in the appeal are claiming their right through a document of 1996, which was allegedly executed by General Power Of Attorney Holder-Sri Ramulu Anantha Madhava, Real Estate and Constructions Pvt Ltd. The General Power of Attorney was executed by the father and his minor children’s which was against the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. Father has no power to alienate the property of his minor children's without the permission of the District Judge as required under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. It is further submitted that secured assets and the property/assets as alleged by the Respondent No.1 are different.

¶22

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submit that both the properties are same. Respondent No 1 is protecting his rights on the basis of sale deed of the year 1996 which was duly executed and registered. No plea of Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act was raised before the Ld. DRT and the DRT has no jurisdiction to decide the title, accordingly, appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

At the very outset, as far as the issue of title in favour of the Respondent No.1 is concerned, it is to be looked into by the Learned DRT, as to whether the securitisation appellant has got any right to prefer an application under Sec. 17 of Act? Whether the property is similar or not, is also to be looked into by the Learned DRT? All the incidental issues relating to the right of the securitization appellant involved are also to be determined by the Learned DRT, which have not been determined in the impugned judgment.

¶24

Accordingly, I am on the considered view that the matter be remanded back to the Learned DRT to decide it afresh by affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law.

¶25

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Appeal is disposed of and matter is remanded back to the Learned DRT, Visakhapatnam to decide it afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. All issues have been kept open. Since it is an old matter it is expected that the Learned DRT should dispose of the SA within a period of 8 weeks from the date of this order is placed before the DRT.

¶28

No order as to costs.

¶29

File be consigned to Record Room.

¶30

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶31

Order dictated, signed, dated and pronounced in open Court.

¶32

(ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J) Chairperson

¶33

Dated 25^th July, 2025 bs/2

Union Bank of India v. Mangala Kesava Rao and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mangala Kesava Rao and Anr.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Federal Bank versus Mrs K Swarna Gowri Mani

Union Bank of India versus Injamuri Arun Vilasini

Nabajyoti Kalita versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Ms Qhureshi Estates Pvt. Ltd. versus The Authorised Officer Shriram Finance Limited and Others

Indian Bank versus Smt Thiyya Gura Venkata Ratnam

Sunil Kumar Samanta and Ors. versus Smfg India Credit Company Ltd. and Anr.