Dismissed

Uco Bank v. Ssvg Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd.

DRAT15 Jul 2025REGULAR APPEAL/94/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case addressed an appeal against a DRT order deciding priority between mortgages. The Tribunal noted that a gift deed executed in 2004 remained unrevoked, transferring title by 2006. Consequently, the Tribunal held any subsequent equitable mortgage created by the mortgagor in 2006 was invalid.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment of the DRT-II, Hyderabad, was affirmed.

Uco Bank versus Ssvg Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

Appeal No. 94 of 2022-DRAT-Kolkata

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶4

Appeal No. 94 of 2022

¶5

(Arising out of O.A. 2308 of 2017 in DRT-II, Hyderabad)

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶7

CHAIRPERSON

¶8

UCO Bank, a banking company within the meaning of section 2(d) and section 2(f) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, having its Head office at 10, BTM Sarani, Kolkata - 700 001 and Branch office at Banjara Hills Branch, Hyderabad represented by Rajendra Rumar Solanki, Chief Manager.

¶9

… Appellant

¶10

-Versus-

¶11

M/s. SSVG Engineering Projects Private Limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Mr. Gundluri Srinivas, #12-2-460, Srinivasa Gundluri Complex, Mohidipatnam, Hyderabad - 500 028;

¶12

Mr. G Srinivas, S/o Late G Venkateswara Rao, Η No. 10-2-289/56, Shanthi Nagar, Masabtank, Hyderabad - 500 028;

¶13

Smt. G. Bharathi Devi, w/o Mr. G. Srinivas, Η No. 10-2-289/56, Shanthi Nagar, Masabtank, Hyderabad - 500 028;

¶14

M/s Jiangsu Communications Constructions Limited Group Company, Regd. Office: No. 99, Xian He Street, Nanjing, China, Local: 16, Buckingham Apartments, Amrutha Valley Road, No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034;

¶15

M/s. Reliance Retail Limited, Regd. Office 3^rd Floor, Maker ChambersIV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021; 2^nd Address:

¶16

#8-2-626, Road No. 11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034;

¶17

Bank of Baroda, Jubliee Hills Branch, Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad;

¶18

State Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082;

¶19

Sri Rajendra Agarwal, s/o Sri Ramlal Agarwal, R/o Flat No. D-204, Srinivas Gundluri Complex, MCH No 12-2-460, Plot No 6 HUDA Asifnagar, Layout, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad;

¶20

Dr. Sunil Mangalam, s/o Mr. Komaraiah, R/o Flat No. B302, Srinivas Gundluri Complex, MCH No 12-2-460, Plot No 6 HUDA Asifnagar, New Layout, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad;

¶21

Mrs. Srilatha, Wife of Dr. Sunil Mangalam, R/o Flat No. B302, MCH No. 12-2-460, Plot No 6 HUDA Asifnagar, New Layout, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad;

¶22

¶23

Appeal No. 94 of 2022-DRAT-Kolkata 11. Mrs. Neelima, D/o Sri M.V.Ramanamurthy, R/o Flat No. A201, MCH No 12-2-460, Plot No 6 HUDA Asifnagar, New Layout, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

¶24

… Respondents

¶25

Counsel for Appellant … Ms. Rituparna Sanyal Ms. Ashmita Lohia Ms. Kaushiki Bandopadhyay Counsel for Respondent No.7/SBI … Ms. Mekhala Kanji

¶26

JUDGMENT : 15^th July, 2025

¶27

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶28

1. Instant appeal has arisen against judgment and order dated 29.7.2019, passed by Learned DRT-II, Hyderabad, in allowing O.A. 2308 of 2017 (Old O.A. No. 75 of 2012 of DRT-I, Hyderabad) (UCO Bank -vs- M/s. SSVG Engineering Projects Private Limited) deciding Defendant No. 7, State Bank of India’s prior mortgage right over the O.A. schedule properties.

¶29

2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, Appellant preferred the appeal.

¶30

3. As per the pleadings, O.A. 2308 of 2017 was filed by the Appellant for recovery of Rs.7,42,27,221.00 against the Defendants No. 1 to 3 and to bring the mortgaged properties of the O.A. for sale and appropriate the proceeds towards the certificate debt.

¶31

4. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the Respondents No. 2 and 3 availed credit facilities from the Appellant Bank against execution of various documents and creation of mortgage in the year 2006 while the mortgage created by Respondents No. 1 to 3 in favour of Respondent

¶32

¶33

Appeal No. 94 of 2022-DRAT-Kolkata No. 7, State Bank of India, was in the year 2010, hence the charge over the secured assets accrued in favour of the Appellant Bank and not upon the Respondent No. 7, State Bank of India.

¶34

5. Per contra, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 7, State Bank of India, would submit that there is no dispute that the mortgage was created in favour of Appellant Bank in the year 2006. But prior to 2006, in the year 2004, Respondent No. 2 had executed the deeds in favour of the Defendant No. 3. The said deeds, executed in the year 2004, were deposited with the Respondent No. 7, State Bank of India, in the year 2010, as security. Hence, Respondent No. 7, State Bank of India has prior mortgage rights over the O.A. schedule properties.

¶35

6. Learned DRT, after hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, recorded a categorical finding that the Applicant, UCO Bank, is the subsequent mortgagee of the O.A. schedule properties. 7. The only contention raised by the Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank, UCO Bank, would be that the mortgage was created in favour of the Appellant Bank in the year 2006 which is much prior to the alleged mortgage created in favour of Respondent No. 7, State Bank of India, in the year 2010. It is further submitted that all the three ingredients for creation of equitable mortgage could not be fulfilled by the Respondents. As there is an earlier mortgage created in favour of the Appellant, Appellant has a prior charge over the secured assets.

¶36

¶37

Appeal No. 94 of 2022-DRAT-Kolkata 8. Per contra, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 7, State Bank of India, would submit that Defendants No. 2 and 3 have executed two sets of documents one is of 2004 and the other is of 2006. In the documents of 2004 wherein gift deed was executed by them which was not revoked till the date of creation of mortgage. Accordingly, when there was a gift deed executed by them, they had no right, title or interest over the secured assets and could not execute equitable mortgage in the year 2006 in favour of the Appellant.

¶38

9. Learned DRT recorded a finding that the Appellant Bank is a subsequent mortgagee of the O.A. schedule property. Accordingly, passed the impugned judgment holding that Respondent No. 7, State Bank of India, has prior mortgage right over the O.A. schedule property.

¶39

10. It is not in dispute that a gift deed was executed by Sri Gundluri Srinivas in favour of Smt. G. Bharati Devi on 9.9.2004 which was with respect to the O.A. schedule property. This gift deed is not under challenge or was not revoked till 2006 or 2010 when the alleged equitable mortgage was created in favour of the Appellant as well as Respondent No. 7, State Bank of India, respectively.

¶40

11. The core question to be considered as to whether a valid mortgage was created in favour of the Appellant Bank by the mortgagor?

¶41

12. When the Gift Deed was executed in the year 2004 which was not revoked, then on the date of execution of the Gift Deed all the right, title and interest is transferred in

¶42

¶43

Appeal No. 94 of 2022-DRAT-Kolkata favour of the Donee. Accordingly, any subsequent transfer by creation of any security interest by the Donor is against law. Admittedly, equitable mortgage was created in favour of the Appellant in the year 2006 although no doubt equitable mortgage in favour of Respondent No. 7 was created in the year 2010 when the donor or the mortgagor had no right, title or interest over the secured assets in the year 2006 then any equitable mortgage created in favour of the Appellant Bank could not held to be a valid mortgage. 13. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment. Appeal lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 29.7.2019, passed by Learned DRT-II, Hyderabad, allowing O.A. 2308 of 2017 (UCO Bank -vsM/s. SSVG Engineering Projects Private Limited), is affirmed.

¶46

No order as to costs.

¶47

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

¶48

File be consigned to Record room.

¶49

Order signed, dated and pronounced in open Court.

¶50

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶51

Dated: 15^th July, 2025 17/ac

Uco Bank v. Ssvg Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Ssvg Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus Sri Korrakuti Venkata Saketh Kumar

Smt Daggupati Suneetha versus Authorised Officer Punjab National Bank

Smt Rutuparna Dhirsamant versus Uco Bank

Ms Neo Tech Oils Pvt. Ltd. versus Ms Ralco Steel Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Ralco Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Partha Gopal Mukherjee versus Bank of Baroda