Allowed

Kona Krishna Karthika Reddy v. the Anantapuram Co. Operative Urban Bank Limited

DRT21 Dec 2023SA/315/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Tribunal set aside the action of the bank under Sections 13(4) and 14 of SARFAESI against specific property, accepting the applicant's claim of fraudulent title creation by the second respondent.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application allowed; action of the 1st respondent bank against the SA schedule property under SARFAESI set aside.

Kona Krishna Karthika Reddy versus the Anantapuram Co… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECET4BER, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A.

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

Securitisation Application No, 315 ot 2022

¶6

Kona Krishna Karthik Reddy S/o Late Kona Ramasubba Reddy Aged a bout 37 years Occ: Business, D. No. 11-1-137 Aravinda Nagar, Anantapu ram u Andh ra Pradesh.

¶7

Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Ana nta^p u ra m Co-o pera ti ve Urban Bank Limited 10-446, Subash Road Anantapuramu, A.P.

¶10

A. Naresh Kumar

¶11

S/o A. Pedda Kondaiah

¶12

D. No. 9-158

¶13

Bukkaraya Samudram Ana nta pu ra mu Dist. A. P.

¶14

Respondents.

¶15

Counsel for the Applicant 1st Respondent 2nd Respondent

¶16

Mr. V. Sethu Madhava Rao. Ex parte Ex parte.

¶17

-:9-B-DI-B:-

¶18

The present Securitization Application is filed by the^Applicant uls.l7 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of^{FinancialAssets} and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002,^assailing the^action of respondent bank in affixing the notice of Advocate Commissioner M.*

(rr' $>

2 ol3

sA No.315/2022

on the SA schedule^{propertyon 03,77.2022 claiming to havetaken} its symbolic^{possessionunderSec.13(4) and Sec.14 pursuantto the} Commissioner^{Warrantdated 02.09.2022 (wrongly mentioned in SA} as 22.09.2022) on the file of^{Chiefludiclall''l ag istrate-cum- Prl' Asst'} Sessions Judge,^{Anantapuramu in Crl.M.P. No 76812022-}

¶23

R-2 was set ex^parte on^{05.01.2023and R-1 was set ex parte} on 74.72.2023 as called absent^{and no representation.}

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel^{appearing for the Applicantand perused} the material^{papers placed by applicants.}

¶25

It is contended by^{learned counsel for the applicant that, the} applicant is a third^{partyto the securitisationproceedings initiated} against the SA schedule^{property.He devolvedtwo cents land from} his grandmother Smt.K.^{RamaLakshmamma and another two cents} from his father Shri K.^{RamaSubbaReddyand therefore, he is the} rightful owner of the subject^{property.The applicant filed civil suit OS} 156/2018 on the file of^{learned Family Judge & DistrictJudge,} Anantapuram against the^{2nd respondent and anotherfor declaration} of title and^{permanent injunctionand also moved IA l94l2Ola tor} temporary injunction.^{Afterobserving the fraud playedin creating} sale document vide^{paras 18 and 19, the learnedcivil courtpassed} ad-interim injunction order^{on 05.11.2018whlch is binding on 2"d} respondent and also 1't^{respondenthaving acceptedthe fake} document as security.^{The1st respondent obtalnedordersin Crl MP} No.168/2022 by^{giving wrongdoor number and Assessment number.} As per the contents of^{undated notice fixed on 03.11.2022,the1st} respondent bank claims to^{have taken symbolic possession.The2nd} respondent has no right, title and^{interest whatsoever in theSA} schedule^property and^{the applicantis the rlghtful owner of the same} Hence the sA may be^{allowedln the interestor juslice.} lv,, /<-iy->

¶26

3of3

¶27

sA No.315/2022

¶28

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, the point that arises for consideration is;-

¶29

Whether the applicant has made out any valid ground to set aside the measures initiated by the 1st respondent against the SA schedule property under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules framed thereunder?

¶30

The contention of the applicant all along is that 2nd respondent has no right, title and interest over the SA schedule property and hence the mortgage claims to have been created by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent bank is invalid. As stated supra, though the 1st respondent entered appearance through its counsel, subsequently remained ex parte to the proceedings. In the absence of any response from the 1st respondent bank or the 2nd respondent refuting the contentions, I am left with no option to allow the present Securitisation Application by quashing the entire action of 1st respondent bank against the SA schedule property under the SARFAESI ACt.

¶31

In the result, the present Securitisation Application is allowed by setting aside the action of 1st Respondent bank against the SA schedule property under the provisions of Sections 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶32

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

¶33

Communlcate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶34

(Dictoted to the Steno, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27'l doy of December, 202j).

¶35

(/w*

¶36

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kona Krishna Karthika Reddy v. the Anantapuram Co. Operative Urban Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kona Krishna Karthika Reddy v. the Anantapuram Co. Operative Urban Bank Limited

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

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/s Li- Style

Canara Bank versus Messers Yuvaraj Trading

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Shriram Trading

Tilak Raj Pathak versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Rajender Singh

State Bank of India versus M/S. Santhosh Enterprises