Dismissed

Surapaneni Ramesh v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT13 Oct 2025SA/316/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad dismissed a Securitization Application filed by a third-party buyer claiming the mortgagor executed sham sale deeds to encumber the property. The court held the applicant failed to prove cancellation of prior deeds or repayment of loans and allowed the bank to proceed.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application No. 316/2022 is dismissed; possession notices issued under Section 13(4) remain valid.

Surapaneni Ramesh versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY^{OF OCTOBER,2025}

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.com, L.LB.(Hons.), M.A.}

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

Securitization Appllcation^{No'316OF 2022}

¶6

Surapaneni Ramesh S/o Late Sri S. Nageswara^Rao Aged about 50^years, Occ:Business R/o House No.1-4-2001111/A,^{Plot No.111-A} Eswari Puri Colony, Kapra Circle Medchal Malkajgiri District

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s ICICI Bank Towers Rep by its Authorized Officer Wall Street Plaza, Second^Floor Begumpet, Hyderabad,^TS

¶9

M/s ICICI Bank Corporate Office ICICI Ban k Towers Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400051 Rep by its Authorized Officer

¶10

M/s Meghana Communications Rep by its Proprietor J.^Ramakrishna S/o J. Govinda Rao

¶11

Aged 49^years, Occ:Business R/o House No.3-191 NR^Nagar Malkajgiri, Hyderabad 500047

¶12

....Respondents

¶13

Counsel for the APP|icant : Mr. P. Praveen Kumar Counsel for Respondents^{1 & 2 Bank: Mr'g. Nagesh Reddy} Counsel for Respondent No.3^{: Mr.G.L,Prasada Rao}

¶14

-: C!.-B-LEB:-

¶15

The Applicant^filed the^{present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitization and^{Reconstruction of FinancialAssetsand} to as Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act, 2oo2 (hnffi,} Fferred

¶16

PaEe 2 of 7

¶17

sA No.316/2022

¶18

"the Act") to set aside the^possession notices dated I5.LL,2O22 and 16.7L.2022 issued under Sec,13(4) of the Act, 2002, in respect of the application schedule^property.

¶19

The case of the applicant, in brief, ls that the applicant is a third party. He purchased the application schedule property from one Smt.Krishnaveni in 2003 through a registered sale deed dated 30.08.2003 and also availed loan from Corporation by mortgaging the same and has been in^{peaceful possession} and enjoyment of the property. While so. he received summons in OS No.14312002 on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions ludge, Malkajgiri which is the suit filed by the 3d respondent for recovery of possession of the property. The applicant in order to meet financial necessities executed a formal sale deed in favour of Smt.Varanasi Srujana and Varanasi Dileef on a condition to cancel the same after repayment. The sale deed vide sale Deed Doc. No.3000/2018 dated 30.05.2018 in favour of 3'd respondent does not contain actual payment of sale consideration but a deferred consideration by way of cheques. A paltry amount of Rs.52 lakhs is mentioned as consideration whereas market value is not less than Rs.3 crores. It proves that the sale deed dated 30.05.2018 is a sham and nominal document. Basing on such document, Smt. Varanasi Srujana and another entered into oral agreement with 3d respondent who obtained loan from respondents 1 and 2 bank by showing the property as security. Due to default, respondent bank classified the account as NPA and issued demand notice and possession notice. However, filing of civil suit by 3'd respondents categorically shows that he had no title over the property. The applicant is the absolute owner of the property hence all the measures against the same are liabte to be sef asid*$,g

¶20

Page 3 of7

¶21

SA No.315/2022

¶22

The respondents 1 and 2 bank^{("respondent bank" hereinafter)} filed reply statement. The^{submissions,briefly, are that the 3rd} respondent availed OD facility and ECLGS of^{Rs.1.25crores and Rs.18} lakhs by executing necessary loan documents^{and creatingmortgage} over the application schedule^{propertyas security,by depositingthe} original title documents. Due to default^{Securitizationproceedings} have been initiated after classifying the account as^NPA. by^issuing demand notice and^possession notice. The understanding^between the applicant is not supported by any document. As regard civil suit, it is between the applicant and the 3'd respondent since respondent bank is not^party in the suit. No single scrap of^paper is filed to^prove the alleged fraud. There is no hard and fast rule to collect market value as sale consideration; it depends between the vendor and vendee. The document filed by the 3'd respondent is a clear cut document towards security interest. The SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

The 3'd respondent filed reply statement. It is submitted, inter alia, that the applicant admittedly executed registered sale deed on 02.17.2017. The 3rd respondent purchased the subject property from Smt.Varanasi Srujana and Varanasi Dileef vide registered sale deed dated 30.05.2018, Doc. No.3000/2018 for a value consideration of Rs.52.21 lakhs. The vendors stated that the applicant is a tenant in the property and when he refused to vacate the property. OS 743/2022 has been filed. The 3'd respondent is the lawful owner of the property by virtue of a registered sale deed and applicant has no right to challenge the Securitization proceedings.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the applicant. learned counsel for the respondent bank and the learned counsel for the -3'd respondent. Perused the material documents placed on ,.rora/fta$$

¶25

Page 4 of7

¶26

sA No.31,6/2022

¶27

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant purchased the subject property from one Smt.Krishnaveni vide registered sale deed dated 30.08.2003, availed, loan from Corporation Bank by mortgaging the same and has been in continuous^peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. In order to meet financial necessities, the applicant executed a formal sale deed in favour of two^persons viz., Smt. Varanasi Srujana and Sri Varanasi Dileef with a mutual understanding to cancel the same upon clearance of the loan to them. On receipt of summons in OS No.143 of 2022 he came to know about sale transaction between Smt. Varanasi Srujana and Sri Varanasi Diteef and^{the 3'd} respondent. The sale deed between them is a sham document^for want of proper sale consideration and actual^possession of^the property being with the applicant and this fact is confirmed through the contents of civil suit. Learned counsel^referred to the^certified copy of the Charge Sheet framed in FIR 306/2023 filed by^{him vide} memo dated 74.08.2025 and informed that^{one Varanasi Someswara} Rao made a complaint against 3rd^{respondent and othersfor cheating} the complaint and his family members for^{pecuniarybenefits.} Learned counsel contended further that the^{respondentbank is not} entitled to^proceed against the subject^{propertybasingon invalid} mortgage created by the 3'd^{respondent.With these contentions,} learned counsel sought to set aside^{all the measures of the} respondent bank against^{the application scheduleproperty.} 7, Per contra, learned counsel for the^{respondentbank would} submit that the 3'd^{respondentcreated mortgageover the subject} property by depositing the original title deed. There is no hard and fast rule to collect market^{valueas sale considerationand it is purely} between the^parties to the^{sale transactionabout sale consideration.} The respondent bank is not a^party to^{the^9ivils,uit. The applicant} /,M-9 //^- \''

¶28

Page 5 of7

¶29

5A N0.316/2022

¶30

failed to explain in what capacity he is in^possession of^{the property} by producing proper documents. The mutual agreement^between Smt. Varanasi srujana and Sri Varanasi Dileef and the^applicantis not supported by any documentary evidence. There is also^{no scrap} of paper proving fraud or collusion, The mortgage was accepted basing on a clear cut document and hence the applicant being^{a third} party cannot interdict the measures of the bank against the secured asset. Learned counsel sought for dismissal of the SA accordingly.

¶31

Learned counsel for the 3'd respondent submitted that he purchased the property from Smt. Varanasi Srujana and Sri Varanasi Dileef for a value sale consideration. He filed OS No.l43/2022 fot recovery of possession of the subject property as the applicant has not been vacating. Learned counsel further submitted that the 3rd respondent availed loan facility from respondents l and 2 bank against mortgage of the subject property however, as he failed to^pay El4Is the bank has initiated Securitization proceedings. The applicant has no title over the property after he executed registered sale deed to the vendors of the 3rd respondent. With these submissions, learned counsel sought for dismissal of the SA.

¶32

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶33

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to quash the possession notices dated 15.11.2022 and 16.11.2022 issued under Sec.13(4) of the Act against the SA schedule property, as prayed for?

¶34

ii) To what relief?

¶35

Point No.(i):

¶36

Admittedly, the applicant is a third party to the Securitization proceedings initiated by the respondent bank. As per material brought on record, the applicant purchased the subject property from Smt.Krishnaveni on 29.08.2003 and he admittel{Dexecuted a

/t,/^ti ^\ L)/

pa8e 6 of7

sA No.316/2022

registered sale deed vide Doc. No.4756l2017, dated 02.77.2017 in favour of Smt. Varanasi Srujana and Sri Varanasi Dileef for a sale consideration of Rs.52.21 lakhs. They, in turn sold it to the 3'd respondent, Sri J. Ramakrishna for same sale consideration of Rs.52.21 lakhs vide registered sale deed Doc. No.3000/2018 dated 30.05.2018 and same has been deposited by the 3'd respondent with the respondent bank towards security for the loan. It is observed that the Annexure-I in both the sale deeds shows the same market value. Thus, the contention of applicant that the sale deed is a sham document due to lesser sale consideration than the market value has no basis. Another contention of the applicant is that the averments of os No.L43/2ozz confirm that the 3'd respondent is not in possession. I have gone through the averments of the OS which give an understanding that the 3to respondent has approached the learned Civil Court for repossession of the subject^property as the applicant who was introduced as tenant by his vendors, has not been^giving vacant possession.

¶41

Even if it is assumed that applicant executed sale deed in favour of Smt. Varanasi Srujana and Sri Varanasi Dileef with a condition of cancellation upon repayment of financed amount, the applicant has not filed a scrap of^paper evidencing repayment and consequential cancellation of sale deed executed by Smt. Varanasi Srujana and Sri Varanasi Dileef.^Having failed to^{establish that he} repossessed the title, the applicant cannot beat around the bush^with irrelevant facts. Mere filing of some receipts towards^payment of property tax and electricity bills are not sufficient to prove that he had repossessed the title overllle subject^property before it has been '5t-. sold to the 3'd respondent. !2za^1.u"r

¶42

Page 7 of 7

¶43

SA No.316/2022

¶44

The respondent bank is^{proceedingagainst the application} schedule^property under^{the provisionsof the Act, 2OO2 on the} strength of a registered^{sale deed Doc.No.3000 /2OlB,dated} 30.05.2018 deposited^{by the 3'd respondent towards security for the} loan availed him^{from the respondent bank.}

¶45

The criminal complaint^{against 3'd respondent is not made} either by the applicant^{or the vendors of the 3'd respondent viz., Smt.} Varanasi srujana^{and sri VaranasiDileef, but their relative whohas} no connection with^{the sale deeds executed by the applicant in favour} of them or further^{executed by Smt. Varanasi Srujana and Sri} Varanasi Dileef in favour^{of the 3'd respondent' Hence it has no} bearing on the^{lawfulproceedingsof the respondent bank'}

¶46

L4. In the light^{of the above discussion,it is concludedthat the} applicant^has utterly^{failed to make out any valid groundto set aside} the^{possessionnotices dated 15'11'2022/16'Ll'2022issuedunder} Sec.13(4) of^{the Act by the respondentbank' AccordinglySA is liable} to be dismissed.

¶47

Point No.(ii):

¶48

l5.Intheresult,theSecuritizationApplicationfailsandishereby dismissed.

¶49

Consequently,^{the InterlocutoryApplicationspending'if any'} shall stand closed.^{No order as to costs' Communicate a copy of this} ordertothepartieSconcernedanduploadintheofficialWebsite.

¶50

(Typed to my dictotion^{by the PS,corrected, signedand pronouncedby mein the opencourt on this} the 13th doy of^{october,2025).} ttlwp rtx(esxwAR^KorHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

Surapaneni Ramesh v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surapaneni Ramesh 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

Hdfc Bank Limited, versus M/s. Elan Agrochem Private Limited

Srinivasa Agencies versus Karnataka Bank Limited

T Shaik Fairose versus Union Bank of India

Gote Consultants versus Union Bank of India

Sharma Electrical Works and Others versus Union Bank of India

Smt R Ramadevi versus tata capitalfinancial services limited