Dismissed

Shivender Reddy Gutha v. Karvy Finance Services Ltd.

DRT6 Oct 2025SA/383/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to quash possession notices and physical possession action taken by a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, relying on res judicata from a prior dismissed application and statutory entitlement under Section 14.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application failed and is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications stand closed.

Shivender Reddy Gutha versus Karvy Finance Services Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL_ II AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE O6TH DAY OF^OCTOBER,2025

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No.383^{OF 2023}

¶5

Sri. Shivender Reddy Gutha S/o G. Ram Reddy Aged about 60^years Occ:Civil Engineering Contractor R/o 8-2-293/82/2/77L Road No.13, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad Telangana State 500033

¶6

.......Applica nt.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Karvy Finance Services^Limited Regd. Office: #705/706,^{7th Floor} Hallmark Business^{Plaza,Sant DnyeshwarMarg} Opp.Guru^{NanakHospital, Bandra(E)} I4umbai 400 051 Rep by its Authorized^OFficer 2. M/s Kanthamaney^{Polymer Pvt Ltd} F-17(1) Phase-1,^{IDA leedimetla} Hyderabad 500055 Rep by its MD

¶9

Ravinder^{Sampath Kumar Poondamalli} Director of M/s Kanthamaney^{Polymer Pvt Ltd} F-17(1) Phase-1,^{IDA Jeedimetla} Hyderabad 500055

¶10

....Respondent.

¶11

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

¶12

Counsel for^ResPondent : Mr.S. Nagesh^ReddY

¶13

-: G-D-E-B r-

¶14

1, The Applicant^filed the^{present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitization^{and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and} Enforcement of Security^{InterestAct, 2OO2lhereinafter referred to as} /ry"e

¶15

Page 2 of4

¶16

SA N0.383/2023

¶17

"the Act") assailing the notices dated 12.11.2020 and 09.12.2020 issued under Sec.13(4) of the Act and the action respondent to take physical possession of the application schedule property pursuant to advocate commissioner notice dated 09.09.2023 in Cl.l4P No.7736/2023 on the file of learned XVn Addl. CMM, Hyderabad.

¶18

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that the 1st respondent invoked Arbitration proceedings against 2nd respondent and obtained Award on 03.03.2014 for Rs.1,00,78,645/- as on 05.12.2013 along with future interest @16010 p.a. The 1't respondent filed EP No.1Ol2015 before learned 16th Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for attachment and sale of the immovable property. The applicant also filed EA 33/2OL5 in Ep No.10/2015 atong with petition to stay the sale. The applicant contended in EA that there is no valid mortgage and property is not security and no notice of arbitration was given. The 2nd respondent admitted to ROC that due to certain problems the applicant was added as Director without consent and loan would be closed. Though a third party issued cheque for Rs.5O lakhs towards part-settlement amount out of Rs.1.02 crores, the 1st respondent did not present the same. The Arbitration Award is only a money decree and hence 1't respondent cannot proceed beyond the Award. The demand notice dated 26.08.2020 and the possession notices dated L2.t7.2020 and 09.72.2020 are invatid and 1.t respondent failed to issue reply under Sec.13(3A). Hence this SA to set aside all the measures against the SA schedule property.

¶19

The 1st respondent filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that the applicant lost earlier SA No.208/2O22 on the same cause of action. The loan was sanctioned with full consent and knowledge of the applicant being Director of the 2nd respondent company. Due to default the 1st respondent initiated

¶20

/ ,, .\ '/ I , 'h*^lr.t.^ ;".v

¶21

Page 3 of4

¶22

SA No.383/2023

¶23

Arbitration^proceedings and^{subsequent to passing of Award, it filed} execution petition for attachment^{of the mortgaged property' The} applicant has not^{issued any reply to notice. The applicantinsistedfor} No Dues Certificate at the^office of^{Registrar which was given by the} 1't respondent subject to^{payment but the applicant left the officeof} Registrar without registering^{the property in the name of third party} as^proposed. The applicant^{depositedoriginaltitle deed of schedule} property towards security and he cannot^{plead ignorance'The1st} respondent has every^right to^{proceedagainst the mortgaged} property under the SARFAESI Act. SA is liable to^{be dismissed.}

¶24

Learned counsel for^{applicant reportedorders may be passed} based on records. Representative^{of learned counsel for 1't} respondent stated reply^{statement may be treated as arguments'} Perused the material^{documents placed on record.}

¶25

The^points for consideration^{are as follows :} -

¶26

i) Whether the applicant^{made out anyvalid ground to} quash the measures of the respondent^{againstthe SA}

¶27

schedule ProPertY, as PraYed^for?

¶28

ii) To what relieP

¶29

Point No,(i):

¶30

The SA No.2O8l2022^{previouslyfiled by the applicant} challenging the^{possessionnotlces dated 12,!1.2020 and 09'12'2020} has been dismissed on^{merits. The issues such as arbitration} proceedings, creation of mortgage,^{settlement agreement, initiation} of Securitization^{proceedingsetc., have been addressed in sA} N).2O8/2O22 and this^{Tribunal dismissedthe SA vide order dated} 31.07,2023 holding that^{applicant failed to makeout any validground} to^quash the^{possessionnotices. The order operatesas res iudicata} and the applicant^{cannotraise the self-same issuesonce} "sutffi.r'

¶31

Page 4 of4

¶32

SA No.383/2023

¶33

As far as action of 1st respondent in taking physical possession of the secured property is concerned, under Sec.14 of the Act, 2002 the 1st respondent being secured creditor is entifled to approach learned Cl4M/DN1 for physical possession of the secured asset. Such action cannot be termed as illegal. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

Point No.(ii):

¶35

B. In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby d ism issed.

¶36

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

No order as to costs.

¶38

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

¶39

(Typed to my dictatian by the PS, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open coun on this Lhe od dov oloctobcr. 20251

¶40

-. (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Shivender Reddy Gutha v. Karvy Finance Services Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivender Reddy Gutha v. Karvy Finance Services 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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Bellamkonda Dileep

Mr.Vijaypal Reddy and another versus M/s.Indostar Capital Finance Ltd.

Shaik Ahmed Mohiddin versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Anusha Agencies

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Osrmp Warehousing Enterprises

Chilamaturu Naresh Kumar versus Bajaj Housing Finance Limited