Dismissed

G Sreedharan v. Bank of Baroda

DRT20 Nov 2025SA/74/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 17 application under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the applicant challenged possession proceedings initiated by banks on schedule property mortgaged in favor of the bank. The Debts Recovery Tribunal held that the applicant, being neither a borrower nor a mortgagor, lacked locus standi, dismissed the application, and upheld the banks’ action.

What did the court decide?

The application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

G Sreedharan versus Bank of Baroda — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1^gTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.74/2c23

¶5

G.Sreedharan, S/o Sri G Srinivasulu, Aged 52 years, Occ:Pvt. Employee, R/o H.No.1-5-458/2129, SVS Nagar, Chaitanyapuri, Kothapet, Saroornagar, R.R. District-SO0 060

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

M/s Bank ofBaroda, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) West Marredpally branch,

¶9

Sec.bad. rep. by its Branch Manager

¶10

Mls Bank of Baroda, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Regional Oflice, Stressed Asset Recovery branch, 6-l-84, l"t floor, Khusrujung House, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad Rep. by its Authorized Officer

¶11

Sri J.P.Padmanabhan Chetiyar, S/o T.PerumalChettiyar, Aged 57 years (deceased)

¶12

4 Smt.P.Shakuntala, W/o Late Padmanabha Chettiyar, Aged 65 years,

¶13

¶14

32 years, Occ:pvt. employee

Chettiyar,

6 are the LRs of

... Respondents

CounselfortheApplicant CounselfortheRespondentsNo.1&2 RespondentsNo.4to 6 SriMukeshSharma SriN.V.Subba Raju Exparte
Reseraedon 16.10.2025
Pronounced on Uploaded on 19.11.2025 20.11.2025

¶19

:ORDER:.

¶20

I . This application is filed by the Appticant u/ s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the steps initiated by the Respondents No. 1&2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CMM, R.R.District in Crl. M.P.No. 18 I 23 and to declare the same as illegal and void and also to declare that there are no outstanding amount in the loan account of the deceased J.P.Padmanabhan Chettiyar.

¶21

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶22

The Applicant is neither a borrower nor a guarantor but a 3rd part5z and owner of the SA schedule property validated by the MI ASCJ,Sy.No.201/l & 2 situated at Sahebnagar Kalan Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District from Smt.Seetha Swaropa Rani Laxmi vide Sale Deed No. 14079 I 2OO4 dt. 1 5. L2.2004. In the year 20 I 1, the Applicant purchased the same from J.p.^padmanabhan Chettiar under Agreement of Sale dt.31.05.2021 after verification of E.C. and paid entire sale consideration and when the Applicant tried for i.on of the sale deed, the officials stated that the schedule under Sy.No.201 and the Government declared the same land and declined to register the same. Chettiar has handed over the vacant physical 20 open land to the Applicant and the Applicant got -l1 entire building with his own hard earned money and in continuous and peaceful possession of the schedule 2

¶23

property and also paying the property tax from time to time. J.P.Padmanabhan Chettiar postponed to conclude the contract on one context and other sating that the land fall under the Poramboke land in the prohibited area. J.P. Padmanabhan Chettiar died on 25.O7.2013 leaving behind Respondents No.4 to 6 herein as his legal heirs to his estate. While things stood thus, all of a sudden, on 10.01.2015 some of the persons visited the schedule property and informed the Applicant that the schedule property was put for public auction by the Respondent No. 1 bank towards recovery of the loan obtained by J.P.Padmanabhan Chettiar under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Being the agreement holder and constructed house therein with Applicant's hand earned money, he approached Respondents No. 1&2 banks but the Bank declined rights and stated that J.P.Padmanabhan Chettiar during his life time has approached the 2"d Respondent and availed the Vijaya Housing loan of Rs. 14 lakhs with the l"t Respondent and later the same was classified as NPA and the Respondent bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and issued demand notice and possession notice. The Applicant also filed OS.No.56l2Ol5 on the file of VII Sr.Civil Judge, R.R.District against the Respondents No.4 to 6 seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dt.3 1 .0 5.2021 in respect of the schedule propert5r and the said suit is pending and the unregistered agreement of sale dt.31.05.201 1 was validated and Sub-Registrar office collected the stamp duty on the orders of the VII Sr.Civil Judge, R.R. District. In the meanwhile, the Respondent published the e Auction sale notice dt.2g.Il .2019 without following the procedure and challenging the same, the Applicant filed W.P.No.2743l/19 and the Hon'ble High -^Ccurtr:.o{ -^{Telanganadirected the Applicant to pay the entiredues of} li^-' .". : -. -r. .;Re ,33,93-4!60lq in two instalments and the Applicant complied witJl .? a/ a\ - (,'r ..,-^trrelffie l:-f "He*Xfip f '^{2.d Respondentreceived the said amount. Hence the} Applicant has -. cleared the entire outstanding amounts but the 2 f"4W"Mt did. not issue no due certiiicate. Thereafter the said writ by the Honble High court by noting the suit. During the pendency of the SA, the 3

¶24

Respondent issued notice dt.2l.O2.2O23 through advocate commissioner as per the orders of Ld.CMM, R.R. District for taking physical possession of the schedule property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by suppressing the material facts and so the said proceedings are not legal. Hence the SA.

¶25

The Respondents no.1&2 filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the one Mr.J.P.Padmanbhan Chettiyar has purchased the schedule property in the year 2OO4 and created mortgage in favour of the Respondent bank on 08.10.2005 and later he committed default and the loan account was declared as NPA as per the RBI guidelines. The Respondent Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFESI Act,2OO2 against the schedule property and accordingly, the Bank filed petition under Section 74 of the SARFAESI Act,2002 for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.CMM, R.R. District has taken physical possession and delivered the same to the Respondent Bank. At that stage, the Petitioner took the keys of the premises forcibly from the Authorized officer of the bank and attempted to keep the possession and FIR has been lodged by the bank against the Petitioner. The Petitioner has also filed a writ petition No.567/ 15 which was later dismissed by the Hon'lcle High Court stating that the unregistered Agreement of sale is inadmissible in court. In fact, the amount as directed by the Hon'ble High court was deposited by the Applicant in no lien account and the same has not been adjusted to the loan account hence the claim of the bank subsists in respect. of the loan account. Accordingly, the Respondent prayed to

¶26

and Ld. Counsel for the 1^tt'z Iⁿ l,^lftm*trLd .!st F., 'f.^{RespondentsNo.1&2 whereas RespondentsNo.4} to 6 who are the legal heirs No.3 remained exparte.

¶27

¶28

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶29

i. uletler the Applicant is hauing locus-standi to challenge the proceedings initiated bg tle Respondents No.1&2 under the prouisions of MRFIIESI Act, 2OO2 in respect of tle sclrcdule

¶30

property?

¶31

ii. To uhat relief?

¶32

Point lVo.(il:-

¶33

During the course of arguments,^{Ld. Counselfor the Applicant and Ld.} counsel for the Respondents^{No. 1&2 reiterated their respective versions} as stated suPra.

¶34

Even as per the version of the^{Applicant,he is neithera borrowernora} mortgagor to the^{proceedingsinitiated by the Respondent Bank against} the schedule^property but^{he is only an Agreement of Sale holder from} the original owner of the^{schedule property. But however he is stating} that he filed a suit in^{o.s.No.56/2015seekingspecific performance of} agreement of sale and the^{said os was decreed. But it is not case of the} Applicant that he obtained^{any registeredsale deed in respect of the} schedule property in^{pursuance of the said decree passedby the Ld.III} Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, R.R.^{District in0S.56/15.Even as per the} contentions of the Applicant^{in the sA, itis clear that the alleged} Agreement of sale^{is executedon 31.05.2011which is subsequent to the} sle.ationof.lnortEageinfavouroftheRespondentbankon0S.l2.20o4in _r,-'' ,'^.."ppCg , ,^{of tti6qchedule} ':,,^{property. So all the subsequenttransactions in} r ,""pEai of the Jcl,edule^{properry shallbe subject to the mortgage created} i ,; 2ir0 rl{Shim th"S""porrd"nt Bank. Even further, the^{saidagreementof} , l::. ,.,^{sale is an url{esisteredagreementwhich is inadmissible in evidenceand} .^, ,.^tx oi".ii-:'' ." t\tilHl:,f;H:ff,.;,'rightsinravourortheAppricant'

¶35

The alleged Agreement of^sale is^{executed in violation of Section13(13) of} the SARFAESI Act,2OO2.

¶36

Section 13(13) of SARFESI^{Act,2OO2 which reads as follows:}

¶37

13(13): No botouter shall,^{afierreceipt of notice referredto in sub-} section (2), transfer bg utag of^{sale, lease or otlenpise(otherthan} in th.e ordinary course^{of his business/ang of his seanred assets} refered to in tlrc notice,^{utithout pior uritten consent of tle} seanred creditor."

¶38

L2. So, considering^{all the circumstances,Iam of the opinion that the} Applicant being $ra^{party who is neither owner nor mortgagorof the} schedule^{property, is not entitled to challengethe proceedingsinitiatedby} the Respondents No.1&2^{in respect of the schedule propertyunderthe} provisions of SARFAESI Act,^{2OO2.So, Isee no ground warranting} interference of this^{Tribunal with the steps initiated by the Respondentfor} taking physical^{possessionof the schedule property u/s14 of the} SARFAESI Act,2oo2.^{Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the} Respondents No.1&2^{and against the Applicant'}

¶39

Potnt No.(tl)r

¶40

In the result, SA74l2023^{is dismissed as there are no merits.}

¶41

Consequently,^{the Interlocutory Applications, pendingif any' shall stand} of. No order as^{to costs.}

¶42

^6. td,)'a copv of this^{order to the parties concemed'} +ii H"aau rr"r, -o"ded"^{signedand pronount*,.! ba ne utuleopeft couttotlthis tlte lqhdag} sd/ :/ rl.x% -U.^L, ,/^A I( G. GOPI CHAND) ' PRESIDING OFFICER i*4;: r,!'ii";;;z"^"

G Sreedharan v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Sreedharan v. Bank of Baroda

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mrs a Madhavi versus Hdfc Bank

Smt Balija Ramadevi versus Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Mr S Prabhakar Reddy versus State Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Bantu Jayanthi

Indian Bank versus M/S. Raju Communications

Ch Vijaya Kanaka Durga versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.