The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed this securitisation application where the applicant sought to set aside possession proceedings regarding a property not connected with the loan secured premises, finding no locus standi.
Applicant's Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was dismissed.
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.
1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT; SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L,LB, (Hons.), M.A, PRESIDING OFFICER
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. I54 OF 2023
Between:
Smt. P. Aparna Mukherji W/o Sri B. Srirama Chandra Appa Rao Aged about 49 years, Occ: Self employed Flat No. C3, 3'd Floor, Sumukhi Orbit Apartment Sumukhi Orbit Road, Near Durgam Cheruvu Madhapur, Hyderabad-500051, Telangana State. .......Applicant.
And
Regd. Office, Flat No.102 Hara's Habitat, Plot No.77 laihind Layout, Madhapur Hydera bad-500081.
frry*,
sA Ls4/2023
| 3. | M/s. SahitiConstructins RepbyitsManaging Directors SriB.Lakshmi Narayana& 9mt.B. Parvathi D.No.8-2-293/82/4/1222/F4 PtotNo.1222,4thFloor,SahitiSrestha NearJubileeHillsCheck Post Hyderabad-500033. |
|---|---|
| Alsoat: HarasHabitat, 7'tFloor laihindLayout,FlatNo.201 D.No.1-98/9/17,Plot No.77 NearBlissHotel,Madhapur Hyderabad,TelanganaState-81. |
|
| 4. | SriBodatiLakshmi Narayana S/oSriAnjaneyulu ManagingDirectorof M/s.SahitiInfratechVenturesIndiaPvt.Ltd' FlatNo.507, HarasHabitat,Plot No.77 JaihindLayOut,Madhapur Hyderabad-500081, |
| 5. | SriB. Satwik,S/oB. LakshmiNaraYana FlatNo.501HarasHabitat, PlotNo,77 laihindLayout,Madhapur Hyderabad-500081. ..'..Respondents. |
| CounselfortheApplicant: Mr.G. Kalyan ChakravarthY, |
|
| Counselforthe7'tRespondent: Mr.M.Ramu. Exparte. Respondents2 to5 |
-:re-EB:-
sA ts4l2o23
to as"SARFAESI Act 2OO2')for settingaside the action of respondent fromtakingpossessionof SA schedule property pursuant to AdvocateCommissionernoticedated 03'03'2023 appointed inCrl.M.P'No.75of 2023 on the file of the learned Chief MetropolitanMagistrateat Ranga ReddyDistrict at L' B' Nagar.
sA Ls4l2O23
./
14.07.2016. Therefore, the ailegation of appricant that the crub House is the subject matter of Advocate commissioner notice dated 03.03.2023 is baseress and untenabre. Accordingry, appricant has no rocus to chailenge the impugned advocate commissioner notice issued against the property entirery different and not connected with the appricant,s sare deed No. 5258/2016 dated 14.07.2016. Hence the sA is riabre to be dismissed.
Despite notice, 2nd respondent remained exparte. Hence he was set exparte vide docket order dated 20.07.2023. Whereas, respondents 3 to 5 were served notice through paper publication. They were called absent and set exparte vide docket order dated 29.12.2023.
y'ffi^rxru
sA 154/2023
nor the1't respondent can invoke the securitisation proceedings againstthesameforrecoveryofduesfromthesaidborrowers.
T.Percontra,learnedcounselappearingforthel'trespondent submitsthattheimpugnedadvocatecommissionerwasissued forthepurposeoftakingthephysicalpossessionofthe propertiesmortgagedbytheguarantorsinrespectofloan availedbyrespondents2and3intheyear20lgfortheproject under thename and style "sahiti's Karthikeya Panorama"' Whereasthepropertypurchasedbyappticantwasinrespectof saledeeddated|4,oT.2oL6intheprojectunderthenameand style..sumukhiorbit,,,forwhichplanwassanctionedasbackas 2B.0B.2oL4.onthedateofexecutionofsaledeedwiththe applicanti.e.,|4.oT,2ot6,theprojectSahiti,sKarthikeya Panoramahasnottakenoffatall.Thelandforthelatter project waspurchased by 3'o respondentunder sale deed dated 0g.07.2018and that by 4'n respondent under sale deed dated 24.o5.Z}LT.Therefore,theexistenceofClubHouseonanonexistentland that has actually been acquiredin 2017 and 2018 andmortgagedtothel'trespondentintheyear20]-gdoesnot arise. Hencethe case of applicantis a mistaken identity' Hence the allegationsand contentions taken in the SA pleadingsare baselessandnotbasedonfactsobtainingontheground.
Whether theAPPlicantsmadeoul any validground forquashing t\e securitisationmeasurestaken by the respondentu/s 14 against the SA sciedule ProPertYunder the provisions ofSecuritisation Act? /ffi*s
sA 754/ 2023
Point No.(i):
4)fr:+t'\
-7 sA Ls4lzoz3
Point No.(ii):
,7)ry.*l (RA#TSHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant made out any valid ground for quashing the securitisation measures taken by the respondent under Section 14 against the Sale-Deed Schedule Property under the provisions of the Se
Whether the Club House referred to in the sale deed is relatable to the property being taken over by the advocate commissioner under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. P. Aparna Mukherji
M/s. L I C Housing Finance Ltd.
M/s. Sahiti Infratec Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.
M/s. Sahiti Constructions
Sri Bodati Lakshmi Narayana
Sri B. Satwik
Sh. Rameshwar Kothe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
