Dismissed

Sri.Shaik Reshma v. Union Bank of India

DRT30 Oct 2025SA/220/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application filed by a property seller (vendor) to set aside a bank's enforcement measures. The court held that despite allegations of unpaid sale consideration, the vendor had no locus standi to challenge the bank's actions against its borrower, as the bank held a secured interest via registered title deed deposit and the vendor had sold the property.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application No.220 of 2025 dismissed; pending interlocutory applications closed; no order as to costs.

Sri.Shaik Reshma versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.)_ M a PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Securitization Application No.22O OF 2025

¶4

Shaik Reshma D/o Shaik Anwar Basha Aged about 25 years, Occ: Doctor R/o H.No.4-35-487, ptot No.3s Balakrishna Nagar, Kukatpally Near Ayyappa Temple Medchat- t4alkajgiri District Hyderabad 500072

¶5

.......Applica nt.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Bank of India B.l1:9Va Nagar Cotony Branch (17741) LIC Building, Beside padmavathi plaza KPHB Colony, Kukatpally Hyderabad, Telangana 5OOO72

¶8

Sri Pulakhandam Uma Rammohan S/o P. Venkata Narasimha Rao Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No.44-3311, Mallavaram

¶9

Narasapuram( M ), Allavaram West Godavari, Ap 534275

¶10

....Respondents.

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. P. Srikar Reddy Counsel for Respondent Bank : Mr.Srinivasa Rao Chakrala 2nd respondent : SA dismissed for default

¶12

-:ORDER:-

¶13

The Applicant flled the present Securitisation Application u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to set aside all the measures of the 1't respondent bank under Secs.13(2) and 13(4) of the Act inclqding the action in

¶14

Page^{2 of5}

¶15

SA No'220/2025

¶16

declaring^{the accountas NPA and to take physicalpossessionof the} SA schedule^{propertypursuant to advocate commissionernotice} dated^{11.04.2025in CrI MP No'100 of 2025 on the file of learned} chiefJudicialMagistrate,Medchal-MalkajgiriDistrictatKukatpally. 2. The^{case of the applicant'in brief is that she is a third party} whoistheabsoluteownerandpossessorofthescheduleproperty having^{acquiredfrom a Gift SettlementDeeddated02 08'21019by} Smt.S.^{Prema Latha Applicant availed housing loan from LIC HFL in} 2021^{against mortgage'Due to loss of job and difficulty in payment} ofEMls,shedecidedtoselltheproperty.AnagreementofsaleWas entered^{into by and betweenthe applicant and the 2nd respondentfor} Rs.48.65^{lakhs,znd respondentavailed housing loanof} Rs.38,9O,OOO/-^{from the Union Bank of India out of which disbursed} anamountofRs'L5,52,426/-bywayofDDtowardsclosureof "..*.,^{*nn LICHFL'2nd respondentfailed to pay balancesale} consideration^{as per sale deed dated27 '1o '2022} (Doc. No.8844/^{1/2022)and gave two promissory notes and executed} MoDT dated^{Z9.Lo.2O2zin favourof respondent bank' As the 2nd} respondentfailedtopaythefullsaleconsideration,theapplicantfiled OS No.08/2025^{on the file of learnedPrincipalSeniorCivil ludqe'} Medchal-^{Malkajgiri at Kukatpally,for cancellationof sale deed which} had already^{been depositedby 2nd respondentas link document} towards mortgage.^{PendingOS the respondentbank hasinitiated} action against^{the schedulepropertyby issuing demandnotice'} possession notice,^{vacate notice and e-auction sale noticeNoneof} rhe notices^{has been served on the applicant'} '"XtJy_:$;A^<>u\ ,/

¶17

PaSe 3 of5

¶18

SA N0.22012025

¶19

As the applicant failed to take notice on 2nd respondent in spite of instructions, SA was dismissed against 2nd respondent vide docket order dated 13.08.2025.

¶20

The 1't respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions briefly, are that the applicant being a third party has no /ocus standi lo question the measures of the 1st respondent bank. The advocate commissioner had taken physical possession of the property pursuant to Warrant issued in Crl.Mp No.100 of 2025. As per sale deed the applicant as vendor received Rs.75,52,426/- by way of DD and Rs.11,38,t5a/_ by way of online transfer. No injunction order is passed in the OS however the 1"t respondent bank is not a party in the OS. The SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

Representative of learned counsel for applicant reported that orders may be passed based on records. Heard learned counsel for the 1st respondent bank. Perused the written arguments filed for the 1st respondent bank and the material placed on record.

¶22

During the course of arguments learned counsel for the 1st respondent bank contended that the 2nd respondent availed loan facillty by creating security interest on the application schedule property by deposit of original title deeds and executing MoDT and defaulted in repayment. Hence Securitization proceedings have been initiated against the secured asset as per provisions of the Act. As per sale deed also, the applicant received the sale consideration by way of DD and online transfer. Bank is not the party in the OS. Though applicant made the borrower of respondent bank as party, she did not take steps to serve notice this itself shows the collusiveness. He further contended that being third party, thfu applicant cannot //l--^cu^{too"u '}

¶23

Page^{4 of5}

¶24

SA No.220l202s

¶25

is liable^{to be} challenge^{the measuresof the bank and henceSA} dismissed.

¶26

The^{pointsfor consideration are as follows: -} ground to

¶27

i) Whether^{the applicantmade out any valid'} against^the '' i,isn anv of the measures of the respondent Ti't nZaLrc P'oP"rtY'^{as Praved for?}

¶28

ii) To what^relieP

¶29

Point No'(i):

¶30

The^{undisputedfacts are that the applicant executed a} registered^{sale deedDoc No 8844/2022on 27 'lO'ZOZZ in favourof} 2nd respondent.^{The2nd respondentavailed housing loan for purchase} of the application^{schedulepropertyby depositing the sale deedsand} executing^{Memorandumof Depositof Title Deeds in respect of SA} schedule^{property. Due to default, the 1st respondentbank initiated} measures under^{the Act, 2002 againstthe securedasset by issuing} statutory notices^{to the borrower-2nd respondent'}

¶31

According to^{applicant, she filed OS against2nd respondent for} cancellation of^{sale deedas he failed to pay balance amount of} Rs.11,38,154/-.^{However, the contents of the sale deed speak} dlfferently, that^{the applicantrecelved the entiresale considerationof} Rs.48,65,oOO/- in^{the formof two demanddrafts dated 22'0s 2022} and 27.10.2022 issued^{by the 1st respondentbank i.e, one for} Rs.75,52,426/- towards^{closureof loan accountof applicant with} LICHFL and another for^{Rs.27,74,4201- in favour of vendor} (applicant). The proceeds of these two demand^{drafts form part of} loan availed by 2nd^{respondentfor purchase of the application} schedule^property. In the^{sale deed, the applicant agreed to have} received the balance sale^{consideration of Rs.11,38,154/-through} online transfer. In^spite of^{suchadmission in a registereddocument,}

¶32

y'l'nrn_- _r/'/'""o'x''

¶33

Page 5 of 5

¶34

SANo.2ZOl2OZs

¶35

the applicant is averring that she has not received balance sale consideration. However, the rnfer se dispute between the applicant and the 2nd respondent shall not affect the measures of the 1,t respondent bank being it a secured creditor by virtue of registered MoDT executed by the 2nd respondent and deposit of original tiUe deeds. Having sold out the property, the applicant has no locus standi to question the lawful measures of the 1't respondent bank.

¶36

It is pertinent to note that the applicant has not made the 1,t respondent bank as party in the os and in this sA she has not taken steps against the 2nd respondent against whom the appricant has a grievance. In view of this conduct, the collusion cannot be ruled out.

¶37

In view of the above observations, I concrude that the appricant failed to make out any valid ground to set aside the measures of the respondent bank against the application schedule property. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Point No.(ii):

¶39

t2. In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶40

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

No order as to costs.

¶42

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

¶43

(Typed to my dictation by the P5, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the^jTth doy ol october, 2025). .,-

¶44

.,-

¶45

[!19 6'.' AR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Sri.Shaik Reshma v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Shaik Reshma v. Union 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

Similar cases

Ms SIta Trading versus Union Bank of India

Kapeeshwar Roto Packaging Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank versus Mr. K Manohar

Hdfc Bank versus Sri Laxmi Fertilizers

Bank of Baroda versus Dasari Janardhana

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. Seemala Sivaprasad