Dismissed

Y Lingeshwar v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT23 Oct 2025SA/28/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Securitization Application under Section 13(4) of SFAESA 2002, the applicant challenged the bank's possession notice. The Tribunal held the applicant lacks locus standi as a third party to challenge measures against mortgaged property and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; bank's action for physical possession stands.

Y Lingeshwar versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAN4ESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), l,l.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application No.28 OF²⁰²⁵

¶5

Y. Lingeshwa r S/o Late Y. Govind, Aged 48^yrs Occ:Business, R/o 7-275/2, Plot No.30 Vinayaka Nagar Colony, Road No.2 Medchal (V) & (M), Medchal Malkajgiri Dist.

¶6

.......APPlicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

ICICI Bank India Ltd

¶9

Rep by its Authorised Officer

¶10

2nd Floor, DSMG, ICICI Towers

¶11

Regiona I Office, Plot No.12 Nanakramguda, Serilingampally cachibowli, Hyderabad 500032

¶12

Prasad Rao Banotu

¶13

S/o Banothu Hatiram, Aged about 35^years Occ;Business, R/o H. No.4- 104/¹

¶14

Akkina puram Thanda, Enkuru, Khammam

¶15

lvlanga lapa lli Seshu Kumar

¶16

S/o lv'!. Narayana Das, Aqed about 48^years Occ:Business, R/o Flat No.709, Blcok 28 SlvlR Vinay City, Opp.Naren Gardens, Bollaram Road Miyapur, Hyderabad 500049

¶17

....Respondents.

¶18

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr.K.Suresh

¶19

Counsel for 1't Respondent :^Mr. G.^{Adrian KiranRai} Respondents 2 &3 :Dismissed fqr default ,l,ir\s1_r-.LLr

'L) "

PaBe 2 of5

sA No.28l2025

-:9-B-D-E-8:-

The Applicant filed the^{present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitlzation and^{Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as} "the Act") to declare the action of^{1't respondent bank in approaching} learned Principal Senior civil^{JudgeCumCJM,Medchal Malkajgiri} District in^pursuance of^{Sec.13(4),as illegal, invalid and consequently} set aside the same.

¶25

The case of the applicant, in^{brief,is that the applicantand his} family members took hand^loan of^{Rs.75 lakhs from 2nd respondent} by executing registered^{sale deed Doc. No.9330/2021 dated} 25.06.2027 followed by Memorandum of^{Understanding(MoU)} whereby 2nd respondent agreed not to act^{upon the sale deed,the} title and property retain with the^{applicantand his familymembers} along with liberty to^{collect rents. 2nd respondent paid Rs.16,77,500/-} towards closure of loan account with^{SyndicateBankwhereupon} Syndlcate Bank executed release deed.^{The applicanthandedover all} link documents to 2nd respondent as^{demanded by him.The applicant} did not receive the entire sale^{considerationof Rs.27.83 lakhs even} as per sale deed dated 25.06.2027.^{The entriesin the bank} statement^provided by the^{2nd respondentclearly establishthat the} sale deed No.9330/2021 was executed only^{as securityand there was} no intention on the part of the applicant to transfer^{the schedule} property. In total the applicant received a sum of Rs.49,62,500/from 2nd respondent. Without responding to the^{requests of applicant} to accept the repayment of hand^loan, the^{2nd respondentexecuted} sale deed Doc. No.11514/2021 dated 30.07.2021^{in favour of 3'd} respondent, behind the back of applicant and without his^consent. on 24.03.2024 applicant^gave a^police complaint agimljes.?ondents

,/,/'1*s''' ./

PaBe 3 of5

5A No.28l2025

2 and 3 for cheating and fraud committed by them. The sale deed executed in favour of 3d respondent is a sham document basinq^on which 1'r respondent is taking steps without issuing any^noticesto take physical^possession of the schedule^property in which^the applicant and family members are residing. Hence the SA.

¶30

The 1't respondent filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that SA filed challenging the Crl^MP No.129 of 2024 is not maintainable. The 3'd respondent availed housing loan from the respondent bank on^19.06.2021 and^created mortgage over the application schedule^property as security^by executing lvloDT on 13.08.2021. Upon his wilful default,^account became NPA as^per RBI^guidelines followed by^{Securitization} measures against the secured asset. After issuing demand^{notice u/s} 13(2) and^possession notice u/s 13(4) as^{per procedure contemplated} in the Act, the 1"t respondent bank approached^{learned Prl. Sr. Civil} Judge Cum CJM for appointment of advocate commissioner to^take physical possession of the secured asset. The transaction between the applicant and 2nd respondent^{ls nothing to do with the mortgage} lying with the respondent bank. The applicant^{has no /ocus standi to} question the legal measures of the 1't respondent bank. The SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

SA was dismissed against^{respondents2 and 3 as notice was} not taken on them.

¶32

Learned counsel for applicant reported that orders may^be passed based on records. Perused the written arguments filed for^the 1st respondent and the material brought on record. ^/1

¶33

/ ,41)w^,. ^c 6. The points for consideration are as follows^, / U {*''. -/

¶34

Page 4 of5

¶35

sA No.28l202s

¶36

i) Whether the applicant made out any^validground to^set aside the action of the 1't respondent bank for^taking physical possession of the application schedule^property, as prayed for?

¶37

ii) To what relieft

¶38

Point No.(i):

¶39

Admittedly the applicant and his family^{members executeda} registered sale deed bearing Doc. No.9330/2027, dated^25.06.2021in favour of 2nd respondent for a sale consideration of Rs.27,83,000/-. It is also an admitted fact that the applicant received Rs.49,62,500/which is more than the sale consideratlon mentioned in the registered document. The memorandum of understanding dated^25.06.2021 between the applicant and others with the 2nd respondent is an unregistered document. The inter se dispute, if any, between^the applicant and 2nd respondent cannot have any bearing on the registered sale transaction and the remedy lies elsewhere but not before this Tribunal for such issues. What can be examined is whether the applicant is able establish his title over the one possessed by the 3'd respondent-mortgagor/borrower of the 1't respondent bank.

¶40

As per material placed on record, the sale deed bearing Doc.No.11514 of 2021 dated 30.07.2027 has been deposited by the 3'd respondent with the 1st respondent along with Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 13.08.2021 towards security for the loan availed by him. Due to default, the 1st respondent bank initiated action against the secured asset under the^provisions of the Act, 2002 by issuing the demand notice under Sec.13(2) and possession notice under sec.13(4) of the Act, 2002. Having parted with the title for a valuable consideration as observed supra, the apAicant^cannot still

1//-'/19lo'

Page 5 of5

sA No.2812025

claim title over the^property on which another third^{party interest has} already been created. The 1"t^{respondentbank is proceeding against} the schedule^property on the strength of a^{registered sale deed} deposited by the borrower^{(3'd respondent)towardssecurity. Being} third party, the applicant cannot challenge the^{measuresof the 1"t} respondent bank under the Act, 2002.

¶45

In view of the above observations, it^{is concluded that the} applicant failed to establish any valid^ground to^{quashany of the} measures of the 1't respondent bank^{including the impugned action to} take physical^possession of the application^{scheduleproperty under} Sec.14 of the Acl, 2002. Accordingly^{SA is liableto be dismissed.}

¶46

Point No.(ii):

¶47

In the result, the Securitization^{Applicationfails and is hereby} dismlssed.

¶48

Consequently, the Interlocutory^{Applicationspending, if any,} shall stand closed.

¶49

No order as to costs.

¶50

Communicate a copy of this order to the^{partiesconcernedand} upload in the official website.

¶51

(Typed to my dictotion by the Ps, corrected, signed ond^{prcnouncedby mein the opencouftonthis} the 23th dov ofoctober' 2025)

¶52

.rinn^__,.,,r_7 t!'"' ' "'' (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Y Lingeshwar v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y Lingeshwar v. Icici Bank Limited

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 Lords Hosiery Materials And Garments versus Dcb Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Gruha Hygiene Concepts

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Dharneesh Gold Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Shravya Logistics

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Yashomedha Enterprises

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Venkatesh Palwaya, S/O P Swarajyam