The DRT dismissed the applicant's Section 17 application. The court held that the DR T lacks jurisdiction to declare title or quash the secured creditor's right to physical possession under Section 14 of the Act.
The Securitization Application was dismissed; pending interlocutory applications were closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THEDEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL '1I ATHYDERABAD DATEDTHIS THE28THDAYOF AUGUST'2025 PRESENT:sH MMESHWART-2'5*r?Ei'' L LB (Hons )' M A'
SecuritizationApplication No'375OF 2023
MohdAbdul Khader c/o Md ZafarAhmed i5 3-;il:3:ifliiJ8l"Sli,",-"sadan 1 s ili,I,,. ijin.i n. r 1 ",:l : 111'13,0^?.1 a n a - s 0 o o 2 e HimaYatnagar,HYderabao'I crd
Versus
AndhraPradesh Maheshco-operative Urban Bank Limited Ba nj a raHiI rs Ho^ llj:i::[",il1"u$ l[l'.T* ".',, -Hyderabad- 5000345, Telangana
...Respondent
: Mr.Arunn MarriPeddi Counselfor the A\Plicant : Mr'Mettu Srinivas ReddY counselfor ResPondent
.:ORDER:-
1.The APplicantfiled the present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17 of theSecuritization and Reconstruction of Financial Assetsand Enforcementof SecurityInterest Act' 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")to declare the measurespursuantto evictionnoticedated 16.08.2023in CrI MP No 1400of 2023 as null and void and to declare tne appticantas owner of the application scheduleproperty
6ffir*e
page 2 of 4
SA No.37512023
to be set aside. He filed already filed two civil suits being OS Nos.404/ 202 and 3tS/2022.
i) Whether the applicant quash the action of ,ur!1lt ?u,ta.ny vatid ground to ioui'in-n;';;;";r;;;:;:::,:r:;ll:ff ;:Xn:!!,:,r,:J trftaY*
Page3 of 4
SA No'375/2023
ii) Towhat relief?
Point No.(i):
-3. I have considered thesub.missionsand perused the materiat'"'o'i'"iiJ'i6'ioiei'i'''Mohd' Gufranexecuted totat 12shopstvins on MoDr ontz'io'ii;iq"ii9iq"'t - differentnoors''ii-the subiect prery!2e^tthat fell to his share asper partitiorl" ie'Jo-bZi'io"'toat2010'Not even a singte word is uxe'"a'iiiiiie pt"goingt-or-in the instant IA about i p e t i t i o n e r's .a' ii' i' ii iii t " " "?' t'!-":'J"r E"i;.f i . ltlUi i f i; Zi- i",contentsof agreemen!.?rtu'11, of theda.uohters of Mohd' Gufran said too" "'"i'i"i6v- i '" Ah m edou'i ns'";" pJ;'t iioi aeeaa a.tia oa' t t' 201 B between Mo daushte"'oir'iiii'G;ii; .Ahmed'However' in anv case,the '"'p'oia"n'i'iinxiing the prior mortgage-holderis entitledto tiii-sanFAESImeasuiei's and take Aphvsical R FA E s I iJIi"*i'; r i;;';;'; ;' iii "t " o "' s "'i##8: " l!-/15'"
page 4 of 4
SA No.37Sl2023
Act. The petitioner has utterly failed to make out any prima facie case in his ,!av9ur ;; ;Lr;;;;;"";rson to interdict such measures. Accordingly, petition i; liaile to be dismissed.
8' It is not reported above order has been charenged hence it attained finality.
9' The respondent is proceeding against the application schedure property on the strength of registered Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds executed by the borrower in the year 2014 who arso deposited the originar registered partition Deed dated 29.72.2009. Such measures of the respondent under the 2oo2 and Rules thereunder cannot ou ,n,".0,.1i:Til;r::rl";;: reason' The respondent being secured creditor is entired under Sec.14 of the Act, 2OOZ to approach learned CMM/DM to take physicar possession of the secured asset and such action cannot be treated as illegal.
11' In the resurt' the securitization Apprication fairs and is hereby dismissed. L2. Consequenuy, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and uproad in the officiar website. ,:l:;!,:iilr;,;::;l|n w tte.ps, corrected, sisned ond pronounced by me in the open court on this
..$19
PRESIDING OFFICEi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a third party applicant can successfully invoke Section 17 of the SRAESIA to declare an eviction notice null and void and acquire title over the secured property.
Whether a Debts Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction to declare title over property and to quash secured creditor's possession measures.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd Abdul Khader
Andhra Pradesh Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Limited
SH M Meshwart
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
