Dismissed

Yele Chinna Basappa v. Shree Mahayogi Lakshmamma Coop.Bank Ltd.

DRT21 Aug 2025SA/329/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to quash possession proceedings. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's plea, noting his suppression of material facts regarding a fabricated mortgage and a pending FIR, holding that he cannot approach the court without clean hands.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application No.329 of 2023 dismissed; Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, stand closed.

Yele Chinna Basappa versus Shree Mahayogi Lakshmamma… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21ST^{DAY OF AUGUST,2025}

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application^{No.329 OF 2023}

¶5

Yele Chinna BasaPPa S/o Yale MallapPa Aged 39^{years, R/o D.No.17-43-1} l.4adhavara m Road,^Adoni=518301 Kurnool, A.P.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shree Mahayogi^{Lakshmamma Co.op BankLtd} No.72, xLllll72,^FlowerBazar Adoni-518 301 Kurnool,^A.P. Rep by its Authorized^Omcer

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant^{: Mr. T. Sridhar Reddy} Counsel for Respondent : Mr.G. Prabhakar Sarma

¶9

-: o-B-P-E-8:-

¶10

The Applicant filed the^{present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitization and^{Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referredto as} "the Act") to declare the^{proceedingsof the respondentbank} pursuant to possession notice dated^{L7 -06.2023 undersec.13(4) of} the Act against the application^{scheduleproperty, as null and void,} illega I and arbitrary.

¶11

The averments of the application,^{briefly,are that the applicant} was regularly making the^{payments and account was notNPA within} the meaning of Sec.2(o) of the^{Act. Howeverbank officials came to} property on Of .O7,2OZ3, handed over^{copy of possessionnotice dated} L7.06.2023 and demanded^{to vacate the property' No deDgnd notice} (i/'>/nry<$\e

¶12

PaEe 2 of 3

¶13

SA No.329/2023

¶14

as stated to have been issued on 23.03.2023 was served. The respondent failed to follow Secs.13(2), 13(4) of the Act and Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest^{(Enforcement)} Rules, 2002 ("Rules" for short). Hence this SA.

¶15

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that the applicant availed OD facility of Rs.1.05 crores, his wife and brother stood as^guarantor and the applicant and his brother created mortgage over SA schedule property security for the loan. Due to failure to operate the account as per terms of sanction, the account became NPA on 30.06.2022 followed by initiatlon of Securitization proceedings by issuing demand notice dated 23.03.2023 u/s 13(2) and possession notice which were duly served on applicant and others. The^possession notice was published in 'Business Standard' and 'Sakshi' newspapers on 23.06.2023 besides affixture on property. At the time of issuance of sale notice, the respondent observed that the applicant and others created mortgage based on a fabricated document certified copy of sale deed No-2446/79A2 dated 10.12.1982 which fact was confirmed from the SRO, Adoni. In fact the property was not belonging to father of the applicant and his brother. Hence a^police complaint was lodged registered as FIR No.48/2025 against the applicant and others. The SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

Learned counsel for applicant reported that orders may be passed based on records. Heard learned counsel for respondent through his representative and^perused the documents brought on record, /2w*

¶17

Page 3 of 3

¶18

SA No.32912023

¶19

As^per respondent^{bank, the mortgage over the application} schedule^property was created^{based on a fabricated certificatedcopy} of sale deed for^{which, criminal actionhas beeninitiated by filinga} criminal complaint^{(FIR No.4812025).There is no report about} conclusion of the criminal^{proceedings.Be that as it may, Despite} receiving the demand notice^{and possessionnotice vide copy of} postal acknowledgement cards annexed^{to the reply statement,the} applicant falsely claims that^{the said noticeswere not served on him'} Further, the material^fact of^{creationof false mortgageor pending of} criminal complaint has been^{willinglysuppressedby the applicant'} The applicant has not come^{before the Tribunalwith clean handsand} hence, he can neither be^{permitted to point out the action taken by} the respondent nor is he^{entitledto any relief. SA is liable to be} dismissed accordinglY.

¶20

In the result, the Securitization^{Applicationis dismissed.}

¶21

Consequently, Interlocutory^{Applicationspending, if any,shall} stand closed. No order as to^costs.

¶22

B. Communicate a^{copy of this orderto the partiesconcernedand} upload in the official website'

¶23

(Typed to my dictotion by the PS, corrected, signed^{dnd pronounced by mein the opencourt on this} the 21't doy of August,^2025).

¶24

PRESIDING OFFICER

Yele Chinna Basappa v. Shree Mahayogi Lakshmamma Coop.Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yele Chinna Basappa v. Shree Mahayogi Lakshmamma Coop.Bank Ltd.

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

Seela Suri Babu versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Trithika Naresh Traders

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Shivram Sarbendu Mallick

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Quality Engineering

State Bank of India versus Sandhya Vani

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Y Sai Praveen Kumar