Disposed

Sree Mayukha Educational Society v. Hdb Financial Services

DRT24 Sept 2025SA/115/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal disposed of a securitization application challenging the bank's physical possession of a leased property used as a school. The court noted the lease was unchallenged but could not adjudicate due to reliance on absent criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application disposed with observation that respondents can take physical possession only by following due procedure of law.

Sree Mayukha Educational Society versus Hdb Financial Services — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^{_ II AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,²⁰²⁵

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE, B.Com,L.LB.(Hons} ),^{14 A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application^{No.115 OF 2024}

¶5

M/s Sree Mayukha Educational^Society Rep by its General SecretarY Sri Na render Reddy Kurelli Regd. Office al #8-747 ,^{NGO Colony} Vanasthallpuram, Hayathnagar,^{RR Dist.}

¶6

.......APPlicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

HDB Fina ncial Services Rep by its Authorized Officer Subway, First Floor,^WilsonHouse Old Nagardas Rd. Near^Amboli Andheri East, Mumbai, Mahatashtra⁴⁰⁰⁰⁶⁹

¶9

HDB Financial Servlces

¶10

1n Floor, 1Ol, Srinivasa Tower

¶11

P. No.13, Municipa I N Mo.16- 11- 1/ 1/2 Saleem Nagar, lvlalakpet, Hyderabad

¶12

Sri Kandimalla Sudhakar Reddy S/o K. Narasimha Reddy Aged about 50^years, Occ: Business H.No.7-24-248/2, Plot No.4 Dwaraka Nagar, Venkatapu ram Secundera bad-500 015

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Shaik Khaja Peer Respondents : Ex^pafte

¶15

-:^q3-D-E-B:-

¶16

, The Applicant filed the^present Securitlsation Application u/s¹⁷ of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^(hereinafter referred to as "the Act') to declare the action of respondent bank in taking^physical possession of application schedule DroDerty throuqh adv-ocate (Nun*

¶17

Page 2 ot 3

¶18

sA No.115/2024

¶19

commissioner appointed in crl.MP No.567l?023 on the file of^learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri as illegal, void^and arbitrary.

¶20

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he is a lease holder of the application schedule^property with effect from 01.06.2018 for ten years with a monthly rent of Rs.86,000/-. 3d respondent is the owner. Lease is valid till 30.05.2028. Applicant is running a school with 200 students studying and 25 members working therein. On 24.0L,2024, advocate commissioner all of a sudden issued the notice to vacate the property. The applicant cannot be evicted unless by following due process of law. Hence this SA.

¶21

Respondents 1 and 2 were once set ex parte on 22.04.2024 as called absent and no representation. On application, the ex^parte order wa6 set aside vide order dated 06.08.2024 with a direction to file reply statement. However, no reply statement was filed and accordingly right to file reply was forfeited on^23.12.2024.

¶22

Respondent no.3 was set ex parte on O9.O9.2O24 as called absent and no representation despite service of^notice.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and^perusedthe material documents.

¶24

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the for the applicant reiterated the contents of the application and sought to allow the SA.

¶25

The^points for consideration are as follows : -

¶26

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid^ground to quash the measures initiated by the respondent against the SA schedule^property as^prayed for? ,/N^-.-

¶27

ii)ro what retief? / ll{lsV (--,.

Page 3 of 3

SA No.115/2024

Point No.(i):

The lease deed dated Lt.12.2077^{presented by the applicant is} a registered instrument bearing^{Doc.No.98/2018executed by 3'o} respondent in favour of the^{applicant educational societyfor a period} of ten^years. As stated^{supra,there is no representation from} respondents to confront the^{documentand contradictthe covenants} therein or the contents of the^{application.Undersuch circumstances,} the claim of the applicant that^{it is a tenant in the propertyremains} unchallenged. However, as the^{Crl.MP No.567/2023 proceedings are} not before this Tribunal no adjudication^{of the casewhich is basingon} those^proceedings can be^{made. AccordinglySA is disposedof with an} observation that the respondent I and 2 F.I. can^takephysical possession of the property only by following due procedure of law.

¶32

Point No.(ii):

¶33

In the result, the Securitization Application is disposed of with an observation that the respondent I and 2 F.I. can take^physical possession of the SA schedule property only by following due procedure of law.

¶34

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

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the official website.

¶36

(Typed to my dictation by the PS, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open couft on this the 24h doy of September, 2025).

¶37

*dK;ii,, PRESIDING OFFICER

Sree Mayukha Educational Society v. Hdb Financial Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Mayukha Educational Society v. Hdb Financial Services

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Gurram Penchalaiah

C Sanjeeva Kumar Reddy versus Union Bank of India

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Kazi Tajamul Hussain

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Bharat Oil Company

State Bank of India versus Mr. Gaajula Nagaraju

Dsr Rural Farmers Warehouse and Others versus Union Bank of India