Dismissed

mohd abdul khader v. the A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited

DRT28 Aug 2025SA/374/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DrT dismissed an application by a third-party Applicant seeking to nullify eviction measures and declare ownership of the property. The court held that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine title and that the secured creditor was entitled to take possession under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application No.374 of 2023 dismissed; interlocutory applications closed.

mohd abdul khader versus the A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE^{DEBTSRECOVERY TRIBUNAL - iI AT HYDERABAD} DATED^{THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST'2025}

¶2

PRESENT:^{SH, RAMESHWARKOTHE' B'99'' L'LB' (Hons')' M'A'} PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶3

Securitization^{Application No'374OF 2023}

¶4

Mohd Abdul^Khader S/o Md^{Zafar Ahmed} Aoe 34 vears,^Occ:Business ii"" ;.i!1.;-61-tezltos,^{Banjara sadan 15} 'rt]Lui iui.unal Hotel, Khairata bad iiil;r;i;;;"i,^{Hvderabad'relansana-50002e}

¶5

. . , .^{. .} .APPlicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Andhra Pradesh^{MaheshCo-operative Urban Bank Limited} Reo bY^{its AuthorizedOfficer} ;""r"i;;-i:oeo/^{raz, RoadNo'1 2, Banjara Hi lls} Hyderabad-5000345,^Telangana

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

: Mr. Arunn^MarriPeddi Counsel^{for the APPlicant}

¶10

Counsel^{for ResPondent}

¶11

: Mr. Mettu^{Srinivas ReddY}

¶12

-:ORDER:-

¶13

The Applicant^{filed the present SecuritisationApplication uls 17} of the^{Securitization and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} Enforcement^{of security Interest Act, 2002(hereinafter referredto as} *the Act,,) to declare the measures^{pursuantto evictionnoticedated} 16.08.2023^{in Crl'MPNo'1400 of 2023 as null and voidand to declare} the applicant^{as owner of the application scheduleproperty'}

¶14

The case^{of the applicant'in brief is that he is a third party'} running^{businessin the application schedule propertypremisessince} purchase. The^{respondent initiated action against the subiect} property in^{violation of fundamentalrights under Article 14' 21 and} 300-A of^{the Constitution of India and hence all such action is liable} to be set aside.Uw$9

¶15

page 2 of 4

¶16

sANo.374l2O23

¶17

The respondent bank filed reply statement with submissions, in brief, that the SA is liable to be dismissed for non_joinder of necessary parties. One Mohd Ghufran Ahmed availed loan of Rs.20 lakhs on 20.70.20L4 by mortgaging 12 commerciar shops incruding the application schedule property as security and deposited the original registered partition Deed Doc.No.10g/2010, dated 29.L2.2009 vide MoDT Doc.No.2949 /ZOt4. He also availed second mortgage loan of Rs.20 lakhs and extended the mortgage. Due to default in payment, account became NpA on L7.OS.2O7gas per RBI norms and securitization proceedings had been initiated against the secured asset by issuing demand notice dated 76.07.2020 and possession notice under Secs.13(2) and :jJG) respectively. Thereafter approached the learned II Addl. CMM, Nampally by filing Crl.Mp No.1400 of 2023 seeking appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The borrower in colrusion with third parties created sham documents and got filed this SA and also SA Nos.371 and 373 and 375 of 2023. Hence SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Learned counsel for both the parties reported that orders may be passed based on records, perused the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for sppli6spl and the material papers brought on record.

¶19

The points for consideration are as follows : _ i) Whether the..1p!tic:nt made out any vatid ground to -iu ii' ror ta * i n e p h ysica t

¶20

IZ;::#; Z,;,:!^{* n,piiii ni}

¶21

for? _. the application schedule property as prayed

ii) ro what retief?

ffi""

Page^{3 of 4}

sA No'374/2023

Point No.(i):

Admittedly^{the applicantis a third pafty to the loan transaction} between^{Mohd Ghufran and the respondentbank' I find not even a} single^{sentencein the entire application as to how he acquired the} property except^{enclosing a copy of partition deed betweenMrs'} Sardar^{Beguma/las Fatima Bee and Mohammed Abdul Khader'the} applicant^{herein' Even otherwise' it is well settled law that the Debts} Recovery^{Tribunals do not have jurisdictionto declaretitle over any} property and^{hence the legal remedy' if any' for the applicant with} regard^{to title on the propertydoes not lie beforethis Tribunal'}

¶28

The^{respondentis proceeding against the application schedule} property on^{the *rengthof registeredMemorandumof Deposit of} Title^{DeedsexecutedOV tne borrowerin the year 2014 who also} deposited^{the original registered Partition Deed dated 29'12'2009} Such^{measures of the respondent under the Act' 2002and Rules} thereunder^{cannot be interdictedwithoutany validreason' The} respondent^{being securedcreditor is entitled under Sec'14 of the Act'} 2002 to^{approach learned CMM/DM to take physical possession of the} secured^{asset and such action cannot be treated as illegal'}

¶29

The applicant^{earlierfiled IA No'2657 12023 in this SA seeking} stay of^{proceedingspursuantto eviction notice dated 16'08'2023'} The said^{IA was dismissed on merits' It is pertinentto reiteratethe} observations^{of this Tribunal to reject the IA and itreads as} hereunder:

¶30

"3. I have^{consideredthe sub.missionsand perusedthe} materiat'"'oii'"iiJ';;';;;";^{uiz'' Mohd' Gufran executed} MoDr on^{tz'io'iiiiq"i i"tiuct or'ytar 72 shops tvins on} different^{noors-ii-tiesubject preli::s that fetl to his share'} as^{per Pu'tit'';" ;;;;i-oio''Nilto8/2/01oAs per the same} (Nou*

¶31

page 4 of 4

¶32

sANo.3t4/2023

¶33

partition Deed, Mrs.Sardar -i-i Beoum (a s n a, e o r i ii i' N : : >" ;, i ; ! I, ; ;,r*,, ::i.T; o:::" { "; fl ; :J Deed dated 0s.1,1.2018 pr"iria"'ii,i,iirvice by the petitioner herein pertains tg sn,oo{ ot;;;i;;;; ;;"se rett to the share or borrower of respond.ent^{-oii*.-'ijlir,} in any case, the respon den t uu n I !::r^ ^*," iin, ii.ii"se_ h otder is en tiiled to take SARFAESI measures ana taii,pnysical possession of its secured assel u.naj1. ;;r:;'; iiirL IARFAEST Act. rhe petitioner has utterty rairci to iaie;;;l uny prima facie case in his favour or -t3ia.or9-re;;;;";; ;i;rdict such measures. A c co rd i n s t y, p e t i t i o n i s i a oi e li' o i"a i r, i=i r, "^a..

¶34

It is not reported above order has been challenged hence it attained finality.

¶35

In view of the above observations, I conclude that the applicant has utterly faired to substantiate his plea to set aside steps to take physical possession of schedule property. Accordingty sA is liable to be dismissuo:or,'.u,,on

¶36

Point No.(ii):

¶37

In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby dismissed, 72. Consequenfly, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

No order as to costs.

¶39

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

¶40

(Typed.to my dictotion by the pS. c tn" zs'o ary'oliusrl:;,;b;;;'" orrected' sisned ond pronounced by me inthe opencourtonthis

¶41

fft'r'vf !:!yAR^KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICE(

mohd abdul khader v. the A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

mohd abdul khader v. the A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban 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

gattameni vijay srinanth versus Union Bank of India

Yele Mallesappa versus Shree Mahayogi Lakshmamma Coop.Bank Ltd.

Dudekula Raja Hussain versus Bank of India

Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Supreme Batteries

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Cepro Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Yammanuru Lakshmamma