The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed a securitisation application filed by a recent purchaser to set aside a possession notice. The court held that a sale deed executed after a mortgage and a demand notice was subordinate to the bank's prior security interest.
SA dismissed; Status quo order vacated; Pending interlocutory applications closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THEDEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- II AT HYDERABAD
DATEDTHISTHE16THDAYOF AUGUST'2023
PRESENT:SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE' B'com'' L'LB'(Hons')'M'A' PRESIDINGOFFICER
SECURITISATIONAPPLICATIONNO. 177 OF 2022
Between:
Dr. A.AnuPama W/o A.G.Sanjeev Aged about51 Years occuDation:Doctor n/o ilchmondVilla No'128 Hvderouda RijeniranagarMandat RangaReddy Dist. Tela ngana.
.......APPlicant'
And
. ...Respondents.
sA 177 12022
Counsel for the Appticant Counsel for Respondent No.1 Respondents 2 and 3
Mr. Asad Hussain. Mr. V.Sethu Madhava Rao Ex parte.
-:ORDER:-
sA 177 / 2022
averments, applicantprayed for setting asidethe Possession interest ofjustice notice dated 03.08.2022in the
f1*22--Z "th:6"'
sA 177 / 2022
4
respondents 2 and 3 cannot convey any right, tide and interest to the applicant during the subsistence of mortgage with the l.t respondent bank. The alleged sale deed is subsequent to demand notice daled 07.04.202t. Section 13 (13) of SARFAESI Act is very categorical that after receipt of notice u/s 13(2) no borrower shall transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise any of his secured assets referred to in the notice without the prior written consent of the secured credltor. As per section 4g of the Transfer of Property Act, the earlier transfers shall be subject to the rights of previously created. Therefore, SA is devoid of any merits and the same may please be dismissed.
sA 17712022
5
sA 177 / 2022
Point No.(il:
B. As could be observed from the foregoing contentions, the original title deed No.2940/2017 in respect of SA schedule property was deposited by the respondents 2 and 3 with l.t respondent bank as a security for the loan vide registered MODT No.2985/2077 dated 15.04.2017. Due to default in repayment, the 1st respondent bank, besides filing OA No.57212021 against respondents 2 and 3, also initiated SARFAESI measures by issuing demand notice dated 07,04.2027. Admittedty, the applicant purchased the property under sale deed Doc. No.9864/2021 dated 08.10.2021 which is hit by sec.48 of the Transfer of Property Act since the date of her purchaser was, subsequent to both dates i.e., creation of mortgage with 1st respondent bank and issuance of demand notice u/s 13(2) of the Act,2002. Admittedly, respondents 2 and 3 conceded their lapse in not informing the applicant about the subsistence of mortgage over the SA schedule property with the 1't respondent bank at the time of execution of sale deed.
sA 177 /2022
Point No.(ii):
(Dictoted to the Steno, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th doy of August, 2023).
K*9 ESHWAR KOTHE) DING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant made out any valid ground for quashing possession measures initiated by the respondent bank under the Securitisation Act?
Whether a transfer of secured assets by the borrower after issuance of a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act nullifies the creditor's recovery measures?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr. Anu Pama
Union Bank of India
Pattaparla Seshi Kiran Goud
Mrs. Pattaparla Kavitha S. K. Goud
Rameshwar Kothey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
