Dismissed

Jambula Ravi v. State Bank of India

DRT26 Jul 2024SA/439/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge maintained that the bona fide purchaser applicant lacked locus standi to challenge the bank's Section 14 possession proceedings against the mortgagor-vendor. The application was dismissed. The Vendor could remedy the situation against the purchaser separately.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed and pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of.

Jambula Ravi versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26111 DAY OF JULY. 2024

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.439/2023

¶5

Sri Jambula Ravi, S/o Sri Buchaiah,aged 48 years, Occ:business, H.No .2-lB, Pothugal, Warangal

¶6

..Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

l.State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorised oflicer, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2"dfloor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal Complex, Koti, Hyderabad-s0O 095.

¶9

Smt. Gopu Sujatha, W/o late GopuRajaiah, Aged 43 years, Occ:house wife, H.No.16- 1-358, SRR Thota, Karimabad, Warangal city & District.

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant

¶12

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Respondent No.2

¶13

Sn K. Kranthi Kumar Sn C. Prabhakar Exparte

¶14

-:ORDER:-

¶15

This application is liled by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, challenging the measures initiated by the lst Respondent Bank u/s 14 of the SARFA for taking physical possession of the schedule Commissioner vide Vacate Notice dt. i8.11.2029, i8.11.2029, purs rs in Crl.M.P.No.l2Sl23 on the file offile ofof the same as illegal and

¶16

Notice dt. i8.11.2029, i8.11.2029, purs the file offile ofof arbitrary.

¶17

The averments made in the apprication, in brief, are that:

¶18

Respondent No.2 was the absolute owner of the house property admeasuring 25o.20sq.yds which is situated at warangal. The Applicant purchasedthe said property through Regd. Sale Deed vide Document No.7O65l2023 dt.25.08.2023 and from the date of purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. To the utter surprise of the Appricant, the Advocate commissioner issued vacate Notice dt. 1g. 1r.2023 stating that he is going to execute the warrant after fifteen days. The 2rd Respondent suppressed the fact that he availed loan from the 1st Respondent Bank by mortgaging the schedule property. The Applicant is a bonafide purchaser of the schedule property under Registered sale deed having paid the entire sale consideration and the 2nd Respondent cheated the Appricant. Hence, the SA.

¶19

¶20

1"t Respondent Bank filed their Repry Statement denying ail the adverse allegations made in the sA. It is contended that the Applicant is a 3'd party who is neither a borrower nor a guarantor. The 2.d Respondent availed loan facilities from the lst Respondent Bank by mortgaging the schedule propert5r in favour of the 1"t Respondent Bank' Respondent No.2 herein filed sA 43r2o23before this Honble Tribunalchallenging the Sale Notice dt.2 r.oL.2023 issued by the 1"t Respondent Bank in respect of the schedure property. In the said SA, the 2"dRespondent has not stated anything about the alleged sale transaction between the Applicant herein and the 2rdRespondent. If the 2nd Respondent herein really cheated the applicant, nothing prevented the !P^{lodgea criminal complaint against the} 2,a t herein has not taken any such steps. on the part of the Applicant and f[^{OraVed for the dismissa] of the SA.}

¶21

¶22

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for 1st Respondent Bank and perused the material brought on record..

¶23

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,_

¶24

i) whether the Appticant has estabrished. ang ground for chailenging the steps initiated bg the i"r Respo nd.ent Bank for taking phgsicar

¶25

possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002?

¶26

iil To what retieJ?

¶27

Point No.(i):-

¶28

7 ' During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the Applicant and Ld' counsel for the lstRespondentBank reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶29

As per the documents fired by the lsr Respondent Bank, it is crear that the 2'd Respondent herein filed sA 43/2023 before this Tribunal challenging the steps initiated by the 1"t Respondent Bank herein for sale of the schedule property. In the said sA, the 2nd Respondent herein clearly admitted the ava,ment of the loan by herself and her husband in the year 2019. The contention of the Appricant is that he purchased the schedule property under Regd. Sale Deed dt.25.08.2023. The Applicant liled copy of the said sale deed and in the said sale deed, the vendor i.e. the 2.d Respondent herein has mentioned that [.^{,'ro charges or encumbranceson} the schedule p rs that by suppressing the mortgage spondent Bank in respect of the loan facilities availed by her and the property to the Applicant.

¶30

¶31

But admittedly, the mortgage created in favour of the lstRespondent Bank in respect of the schedule property is much prior to the sale deed obtained by the Applicant herein. so, the proper remedy available for the Applicant herein is to take necessary steps against the 2nd Respondent herein for executing the said sare deed by suppressing the mortgage created in favour of the 1st Respondent Bank in respect of the schedure property. when the r st Respondent Bank has initiated necessary proceedings as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession of the schedule property, the Applicant without having any right over the schedule propert5r, is not entitled to challenge the proceedings initiated by the 1st Respondent Bank in respect of the schedule property.

¶32

8' So' considering all the circumstances, I hold that the Applicant being a 3'd party is not having locus standi to challenge the proceedings initiated by the 1st Respondent Bank for taking physical possession of the schedule property uls 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. So, the present SA filed by the Applicant is liable to be dismissed as there are no merits. Accordingly, this point is answered against the Applicant and in favour of the 1st Respondent Bank.

¶33

Point No.(ii):-

¶34

9' In the result, the present Securitization Application IS dismissed. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if &try, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶35

i0' communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶36

,"ryr':fi"i;,;i#W her, corrected., signed and pronounced. bs me in the open court on this the 26th
"rrffi*
ltr q* {S 9\
fry
J z E Jtt ilt :)l .rErrr= Aa-.^ --_!_9:copr r N G o ""f^iJiFFr c ER
:v:ryy, lg:d9nlv"," \rnnsm
fr-vrt
Rh,,,*d# lss{*es&7a,
onr-t, ityoFn,o,t,,:.
sdQfpmf r[9Ay>/ V

Jambula Ravi v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jambula Ravi v. State Bank of India

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

State Bank of India versus Mr. G. Devender

Karur Vysya Bank versus Sri Ammapalli Gurunatham

State Bank of India versus Mr. Mouli Ravitla

Bank of India versus Dr. Bheemagani Lakshmi Narayana

Sri Bhavesh Kumar Gupta versus Uco Bank

Ms Durga Pharma versus Uco Bank