Allowed

Tata capital housing Finance Ltd. v. B Sravan Kumar

DRAT12 Nov 2025REGULAR APPEAL/38/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order wherein the DRT had conditioned the secured creditor's recovery measures under the Securitisation Act on the outcome of a civil suit challenging the property sale. The Tribunal held that since the underlying civil suit regarding fraud was dismissed, the DRT's observations were uncalled for and against law.

What did the court decide?

Observations that recovery measures under the Securitisation Act must be subject to the outcome of civil proceedings were set aside.

Tata capital housing Finance Ltd. versus B Sravan… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

Appeal No.38 of 2023 -DRAT-Kolkata

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT

¶4

KOLKATA

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶6

Appeal No. 38 of 2023

¶7

(Arising out of S.A. No. 138 of 2018 in DRT-II, Hyderabad)

¶8

Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. Plot No. 3,4,5 & 6, Road No. 3, Auto Plaza, Opp. Times of India, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500034.

¶9

.…Appellants

¶10

-Versus-

¶11

B. Sravan Kumar, R/o. H. No. 6-3-174/2, Prem Nagar, Khairthabad, Hyderabad – 500016.

¶12

V. Balraj R/o. H. No. 4-12-45/5, (old) Dwarkamani Nagar near Saibaba Temple Vanashalipuram Hyderabad 500070.

¶13

Mulugu Bhaskar, R/o. H. No. 12-21 Road No. 11 R.K. Puram Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad-500035.

¶14

….Respondents

¶15

Counsel for Appellants Mr. Rajiv Maity, Learned Counsel.

¶16

Counsel for Respondents Mr. Nemani Srinivas

¶17

JUDGMENT : 12^th November, 2025

¶18

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶19

Instant appeal has been preferred against a judgment and order dated 06.12.2019 passed by Learned DRT-2 Hyderabad in S.A. No. 138 of 2018 whereby Learned DRT dismissed the Securitisation Application with an observation

¶20

¶21

. Appeal No.38 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata that the measures initiated by the secured creditor shall be subject to the outcome of the Civil Suit initiated by the Securitisation Applicants.

¶22

2. Feeling aggrieved by the observations, secured creditor preferred the Appeal. 3. As far as facts of the matter are concerned, S.A. No. 138 of 2018 was filed by the Respondent No. 1, B. Sravan Kumar challenging the e-auction Sale Notice dated 29.03.2018 issued by the Appellant herein Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited. Respondent No. 1 claimed himself to be the actual owner of the property. Respondent No. 3, Mulugu Bhaskar is the borrower of Appellant who mortgaged the property which is subject matter of the e-auction Notice dated 29.03.2018 issued on account of default of loan. A challenge to the e-auction Notice was made on the ground that the Respondent No. 1 purchased the house property in 1979. Thereafter availed loan facility from Standard Chartered Bank which became NPA. Respondent No. 1 namely B Sravan Kumar sought assistance from Respondent No. 2, V. Balraj who provided him financial assistance on execution of certain documents. It is alleged that Rs.24 lacs was agreed to be paid to Respondent No. 1 by Respondent No. 2 on execution of General Power of Attorney which was duly executed. On the basis of General Power of Attorney, house property was sold by Respondent No. 2 in favour of Respondent No. 3 on 27.02.2012. When the Respondent No. 1 namely B. Sravan Kumar came to know about the same on 04.11.2017, he filed a Civil Suit No. 736 of 2015.

¶23

¶24

. Appeal No.38 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata 4. Respondent No. 3 obtained a financial assistance from the Appellant on 18.02.2012 for Rs.98,22,115/- by creation of equitable mortgage of the property suit. The Respondent No. 1 was a witness in the sale deed executed by Respondent No. 2 in favour of Respondent No. 3.

¶25

5. Loan of account of Respondent No. 3 became NPA and the Appellant proceeded under the Securitisation Act and e- auction Sale Notice was issued which was challenged. Physical possession was also taken by the Appellant. Securitisation Application filed by the Respondent No. 1 was dismissed by the DRT with certain observations to the effect that any measures initiated by the secured creditor under the Securitisation Act shall be subject to outcome of the Civil Proceedings initiated by the Applicant.

¶26

6. Appellant/ secured creditor challenged the impugned judgment so far as it relates to the observations made by the Learned DRT. 7. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. At the very outset, it is to be observed that the Civil Suit filed by the Respondent No. 1 Securitisation Applicant is dismissed by the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad O.S. No. 736 of 2015 (B Sravan Kumar versus V. Balraj and others) on 28^th March, 2025 wherein Learned Civil Court held that it could not be proved that any fraud was played against the plaintiff. The documents Agreement to Sale cum General Power of Attorney and Registered Sale

¶27

¶28

. Appeal No.38 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata

¶29

Deed were executed at the instance of plaintiff. No collusion or fraud could be proved. Accordingly, suit was dismissed. 9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent would submit that Appeal is preferred against the judgment passed by the Learned Civil Court.

¶30

10. As far as impugned judgment passed by the Learned DRT in S.A. No. 138 of 2018 is concerned, the Learned DRT simply held that any measures initiated by the secured creditor to the Securitisation Act shall be subject to the outcome of the Civil proceedings initiated by the Securitisation Applicant which is already dismissed. However, law is well settled that any order of a competent Court if passed exercising jurisdiction in accordance with law shall have its own importance but when the Learned DRT did not find any ground to set aside the action initiated by the secured creditor under the Securitisation Act which has overriding effect, then the observations made by the Learned DRT are of no significance. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the observations made by the Learned DRT are uncalled for and against law and have to be set aside. Accordingly, Appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Appeal is allowed. Observations made by the Learned DRT to the effect that the measures initiated by the secured creditor under Securitisation Act and Rules against the S.A. Schedule property will be subject to outcome of the sale proceedings initiated by the Applicant are set aside.

¶33

¶34

. Appeal No.38 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata However, any direction of any Court or Tribunal, passed in exercise of its jurisdiction in accordance with law, shall be binding on the parties.

¶35

No Order as to costs.

¶36

File be consigned to Record Room.

¶37

Copy of the Judgment/ Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.

¶38

Order signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12^th day of November, 2025.

¶39

Chairperson

¶40

Dated 12^th November, 2025 /tp

Tata capital housing Finance Ltd. v. B Sravan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata capital housing Finance Ltd. v. B Sravan Kumar

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

Prabir Kumar Sasmal versus State Bank of India

Edelweiss asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. versus H.S Bedi

Imran Sha Choudhury versus Punjab National Bank

Canara Bank versus M S G Q Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Veenkata Prashanth Gade versus State Bank of India

Kum Manukonda Sahithi versus Union Bank of India