Dismissed

Smt R Ramadevi v. tata capitalfinancial services limited

DRT13 Oct 2025SA/203/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissed a securitization application filed by a former property owner. The Tribunal held that since the applicant sold the disputed flats for valid consideration long before the enforcement measures, she lacked locus standi to challenge the Respondent's SARFAESI actions regarding the assets now held by a bona fide purchaser.

What did the court decide?

All measures of the 1st respondent against the schedule properties were upheld and the Securitization Application dismissed.

Smt R Ramadevi versus tata capitalfinancial services limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

DATED THIS THE^{13THDAY OF OCTOBER,2025}

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application^{No.203OF 2023}

¶5

Smt. R. Rama Devi @^{Smt. J. Rama Devi} W/o late Sri R. VenugoPal^ReddY Aged 83 years, R/o H.No.^12-13-308/8 Street No.19, Tarnaka,^HYderabad

¶6

.......APPlicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Authorised Officer

¶9

Tata Capital Financial^ServicesLtd Having its Branch^{Office at Plot Nos.3 to 6} Road No.3, Auto^{Plaza Building} Opposite Times^{of India} Banjara Hills,^{HYderabad 500 0345}

¶10

Dr. Anuradha

¶11

W/o late Dr.^{Chandrasekar Ramakrishnappa} Major, H.No.1-2-3/l/1,^{NearAnuradha Nursing Home} AzamPura ColonY,^{Medak 502110}

¶12

M/s NavYa^{Children HosPital} n.ruo.fOg/:/r/1,^{NearAnuradha Nursing Home} Azampura ColonY,^{Medak 502110}

¶13

Mr. Bodda^Anjaiah S/o Sri Agaiah Major, R/-o^{H.No.2-1-123, Bharath Road} Kamareddy,^{TelanganaState}

¶14

....Respondents.

¶15

Counsel for^{the Applicants: Mr' K' Sairam Murthy} Counsel for^{1tt Respondent : Mr' LankaJagannadham} Respondent No.2 : No representation Res1ondents3&4 : Ex Parte T\rl"r -.,,,1.'" 'l:' '

Page 2 ol7

SA No.203/2023

-:ORDER:-

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, ZOO2 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to declare all the measures initiated by the 1st respondent including the action of the 1st respondent in approaching the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally and obtaining orders dated 14.03.2023 in crl.Mp No.1096/2023 appointing advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the application schedule properties as bad in law.

¶20

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that she entered into unregistered development agreement with Kalyan Constructions, a partnership firm for construction of residential complex in total property admeasuring 1156 sq. yards out of which, four Flats morefully described in the SA schedule, fell to her share. In the process of providing financial assistance to her daughter, the applicant approached 2nd respondent and her husband Dr.Chandra Sekhar who got signatures of the applicant on various blank papers and got registered sale deed in favour of 4th respondent herein. The applicant several problems from 2nd respondent and her husband leading to complaints with CID, the police and private complaint being CC Sr.No.1836 of 2027. The OS No.87O of 2017 filed by the applicant herein before tearned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration of tifle and cancellation of sate deed Nos.74 of2015 and 292 of 2016 and said OS is pending adjudication. While so, the 1't respondent initiated Securitization measures against 2nd respondent basing on the fraudulent sale deed dated 09.01.2025 in the name of 4th respondent who in turn executed sale deed dated 29.07.2076 in favour of husband of 2nd respondent (since deceased

,e{,rs

Page 3 of7

SA No.203/2023

now) without delivery of^{possession.As} the suit^{for declaration and} cancellation of sale deeds is^{pending adiudication, the 1$ respondent} cannot^proceed against the SA schedule^{propertieshencethlsSA.}

¶25

The 1't respondent adopted the counter^{filed inIA} No.1251/2023 as reply statement in the SA.^{The submissions, briefly,} are that the right of the applicant over the^{schedule propertyceased} when she sold the property to the 4th respondent through^a registered sale deed dated 09.01.2025. The 2nd^respondent purchased the property from 4th respondent on 28.01.2016 vide registered sale deed No.292 of 2016 for consideration. Therefore applicant is not an aggrieved^party as^per Sec.17 of the^{Act, 2002.} The 2nd respondent and her husband availed loan against^mortgageof property by depositing the sale deed No.292/2016. defaulted in repayment which led to declaration of loan account as NPA and initiation of SARFAESI measures against the secured assets. Slnce Dr.Chandrasekhar Ramakrishnappa died intestate leaving behind^the 2"d respondent as legal helr of him, besides she belng co-applicant, SARFAESI notices have been issued on her. Till now no competent court cancelled the sale deeds 6412015 and 292/2016. According to Sec.14(3) of the Act, 2002, no act of CMM or DM shall be called in question in any Court or any authority. Hence the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

No representation for Znd respondent though entered appearance through a counsel. The respondents 3 and 4 were set ex parte on 15.05.2023 as called absent and no representation despite service of notice.

¶27

Heard Ms. C.Ashawarl representing learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Lanka lagannadham, learned counsel for l't Ns'tb

¶28

Page 4 of 7

¶29

sA No.20312023

¶30

respondent company. Perused the,written arguments filed for the applicant and the material brought on record.

¶31

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the advocate commissioner issued vacate notice dated L2.04.2023 pursuant to Warrant dated 10.04.2023 in Crl.Mp No.1096/2023 in respect of four flats morefully described in the SA schedule, whereas there is only one property i.e., Flat No.103 mentioned in the orders in Crl.MP No.1096 of 2023. Without filing any application for correction of orders as per procedure, the orders got corrected just by filing memo. Hence the action is bad in law. According to learned counsel the order under Sec.14 of the Act lost its force upon expiry of returnable date as fixed by the CMM as held by the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh in Wp No.30161 of 2021 between M/s Manoalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited and another vs. The State Bank of India, Rep. bv its Authorized Officer and another decided on 18.02.2022. Learned counsel would further contend that the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to review or recall such order passed under Sec.14 of the Act. Without appreciating the facts of discrepancy in schedule of properties in Crl.MP No.1096/2023 and judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madhva Pradesh at Jabalour in Wp No.21960 of 2022 bv referring the Division Bench iudqement of Puniab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.31871-2019 (Shriram Housing Finance Limited vs. State of Haryana and Others), the Tribunal dismissed the stay petition No.t2O9/2024 stating that the Warrant dated 10.04.2023 contains all four Flats. However, the applicant is not directly questioning the order but questioning the malafide intention of the 1't respondent. Hon'ble DMT, Kolkata granted liberty to urge all the issues in the pending SA. With these

¶32

,//a\,^.,r, U./ {tt.-

¶33

Page 5 of 7

¶34

sA No.203/2023

¶35

contentions, learned counsel sought for setting aside all the measures of the 1st respondent against the SA schedule^properties.

¶36

Learned counsel for the 1st respondent in reiteration of his version as in the reply submitted that the applicant is a third party hence she cannot question the measures of the secured creditor. With execution of a registered title deed in favour of 4th respondent for a value consideration, applicant lost right, title and interest in the schedule properties. The 1't respondent is proceeding against the schedule assets mortgaged by the husband of 2nd respondent and now inherited by her after death of her husband. Apart from this, the 2nd respondent is also co-applicant to the loan transaction. The action before the learned CMM cannot be questioned before the Tribunal as per Sec.14(3) of the Act, 2002. However, the 1st respondent has initiated SARFAESI action according to law.

¶37

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶38

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to quash the measures of the respondent against the SA schedule^properties, as prayed for?

¶39

ii) To what relieP

¶40

Point No.(i'l:

¶41

This SA was once dismissed for default on 08.08.2023 and restored to file vide order dated 13.03.2024 in MA No.722/2023.

¶42

I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties. A perusal of copy of the sale deed Doc.No.64l2015 as placed at page-120 of SA documents, executed by the applicant in favour of 4th respondent. discloses the fact that the petitioner acknowledged receipt of Rs.57,51,000/- towards sale consideration. Hence it is a confirmed fact that the applicant sold the //W^,t'9 L7

¶43

page 6 ol7

¶44

SA No.203/2023

¶45

property for a value consideration. Subsequently the 4th respondent sold the properties to husband of 2nd respondent vide registered sale deed Doc.No.292l2016 which came to be deposited with the 1"t respondent towards security for the loan availed by the husband of 2nd respondent and herself as applicant and co-applicants. Due to default committed in repayment, SARFAESI action has been taken by 1st respondent against the secured assets which are now lying in the hands of 2nd respondent, which cannot be termed as illegal.

¶46

As borne out of record, the advocate commissioner appointed in Crl.MP No.1096/2023 had already taken over possession of the schedule properties. According to learned counsel for applicant, advocate commissioner exceeded the Warrant which was initially issued in respect of Flat No.103 only and subsequently got corrected basing on^just a memo without there being any formal application by the 1't respondent hence such action is bad in law; and the Tribunal also did not appreciate these facts while dismissing the earlier stay petition. While dismlssing the IA No.1209/2024 daled 02.05.2024 vide para 7 this Tribunal categorically observed that the dispute with regard to respondent obtaining order on 19.09.2023 based on a memo cannot be raised in these proceedings in view of the Sec.14(3) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 that the act of the CMM/DM cannot be called in question before any court or authority. The^judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant are of Hon'ble High Courts. The applicant cannot expect any observations on the orders of the learned CMM/DN4, by this Tribunal when there is specific bar for doing so under Sec.14(3) of the Act, 2002 itself.

¶47

The criminal cases or complaints filed against 2nd respondent will have their own destiny. As far as filing of civil suit for declaration of title and cancellation of sale deeds ls concerned, as on today it is

'"$

PageT of 7

sA No.203/2023

not reported that sale deeds have been cancelled or that there is any restraint order against the 1st respondent. The applicant has not even filed the updated status of the civil suit. In the absence of any of the above, the 1tt respondent cannot wait endlessly to realize its dues from the borrower from out of the secured assets.

¶52

Having parted with the title over the schedule property/Flats through a registered sale deed for consideration, the applicant is bereft of locus standi to question the measures of the 1't respondent which is proceeding against the same in accordance with law.

¶53

t4. In view of the above observations in the preceding paragraphs, it is concluded that the applicant failed to make out any valid ground to set aside any of the measures of the respondent including the action to take physical possession of the SA schedule property. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶54

Point No.(ii):

¶55