Dismissed

Yele Mallesappa v. Shree Mahayogi Lakshmamma Coop.Bank Ltd.

DRT26 Aug 2025SA/330/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated an application to declare proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act as void. The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant had not approached the tribunal with clean hands due to alleged fabrication of mortgage documents and pending criminal action by the bank's findings. The court rejected claims of non-service of notices based o

What did the court decide?

Application declared as null and void claim dismissed. Interlocutory applications closed. No order as to costs.

Yele Mallesappa versus Shree Mahayogi Lakshmamma Coop.Bank Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -II ATHYDERABAD} DATED THIS^{THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST,2025}

¶2

PRESENT:^{SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.COM, L.LB.(HONS.), !1.A.} PRESIDING^OFFiCER

¶3

Securitization^{Application No'330OF 2023}

¶4

Yele Mallesa PPa S/o Yale^MallaPPa Aoed 40 vears,^{R/o D.No.17-43-1} r'l-aafravaiam Road,^Adoni-518301 Kurnool,^A.P.

¶5

.......Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Co.op^{Bank Ltd} Shree lvlahayogi^Lakshmamma NoJz, XIfil772,^{Flower Bazar} Adoni-518^{301 Kurnool, A.P.} Rep bY^{its Authorized Officer}

¶8

: Mr. T. Sridhar^ReddY Counsel for^{the APPlicant}

¶9

: Mr.G. Prabhakar^Sarma Counsel^{for Res?ondent}

¶10

-:g-B-D-EB:-

¶11

The Applicant^{filed the present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitization^{and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} Enforcement^{of SecurityInterest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referredto as} "the Act') to^{declare the proceedingsof the respondentbank} pursuant to^{possession notice dated 17} '06'2023^{under Sec'13(4)of} the Act against^{the application scheduleproperty, as null and void'} illegal and arbitrarY.

¶12

The averments^{of the application,briefly,are that the apPlicant} was regularly^{makingthe paymentsand account was notNPA within} the meaning of^{Sec.2(o) of the Act. Howeverbank officials came to} property on 07.o7,2023,^{handed over copy of possessionnotice dated} 77.06.2023 and demanded^{to vacate th9 property.No demand notice} 6fun*"

¶13

Page 2 of3

¶14

sA No,330/2023

¶15

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 Rutes 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 ("Rules" for short). Hence this SA.

¶16

at 0 >

¶17

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that the applicant,s mother availed OD facility of Rs.1 crore, his wife stood as guarantor and the applicant and his brother created mortgage over SA schedule propertyf:9curity for the loan. Due to failure to operate the account as per terms of sanction, the account became NpA on 30.06.2022. Bank came to know that applicant,s mother Smt.y.S. Leela expired on 20.05.2027 leaving behind the applicant and his brother. Respondent bank initiated Securitization proceedings by issuing demand notice dated 23.03.2023 u/s 13(2) and possession notice on appticant, his brother as well as wife of applicant being guarantor which were duly served as per postal acknolwedgements. The possession notice dated 77.06.2023 was published in^.Business Standard, and^.Sakshi, newspapers on 23.06.2023 besides affixture on secured asset. At the time of issuance of sale notice, the respondent observed that the applicant and others created mortgage based on a fabricated document certifled copy of sale deed No.2446/lg12 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 dated 29.03.2025 against the applicant and others. The SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Learned counsel for applicant reported that orders may be passed based on records. Heard learned counsel for respondent

¶19

Page 3 of 3

¶20

SA No.330/2023

¶21

throughhisrepresentativeandperusedthedocumentsbroughton record.

¶22

As^{per respondentbank, the mortgage over the application} schedule^{property was created based on a fabricated certificatedcopy} of sale deed for^{whlch, criminal actionhas beeninitiated by filing a} criminal complaint^{(FIR No'48/2025)'There is no report about} conclusionofthecriminalproceedings'Bethatasitmay.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 cleanhandsand} hence, he can neither be^{permitted to point out the action taken by} therespondentnorisheentitledtoanyrelief.SAisliabletobe dismissed accordinglY.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

S.Communicateacopyofthisordertothepartiesconcernedand upload in the official^website.

¶26

(Typed to my dictotion by the^PS, corrected,^{signed ond pronouncedby mein the opencourt on this} the 2dh doy ol august,^2025).

¶27

K.*" ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Yele Mallesappa v. Shree Mahayogi Lakshmamma Coop.Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yele Mallesappa 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

Union Bank of India versus M/S Trans Packs

Yes Bank versus Royal General Contractors Private Limited

Yes Bank versus Daravath Kamli

Standard Chartered Bank versus Ajwa World Trade

Standard Chartered Bank versus Saitirumala Papers Private Limited

Standard Chartered Bank versus The Chocolate Room India Private Limited