Dismissed

Sri vijaykumar v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT22 Aug 2025SA/84/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securities application filed to set aside the bank's recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the plea. The court held the applicant failed to prove he was an owner or that the sale was merely nominal, as record evidence showed full consideration was paid and specific remedies were not availed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri vijaykumar versus Bank of Maharashtra — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL_ 1I AT HYDEMBAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE^{22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025}

¶3

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

¶4

securitization^{ApplicationNo.84OF 2025}

¶5

Sri S. Vijay Kumar

¶6

S/o Sri Veera^Bhadram Aged about 44 Years,^Occ:Business R/o H.No.3-17lE,^{Plot t|o.11}

¶7

Mallampet Village,^{Dundigal GandimasiammaMandal} Medchal Malkajgiri^{District,Telangana State}

¶8

... ....APPlicant.

¶9

Versus

¶10

Bank of^Maharashtra

¶11

Rep by lts Authorized^Officer Kukatpally Branch,^{RadhakrishnaEstate} Road No.4, KPHB Colony Kukatpally, HYderabad-500⁰⁷²

¶12

Bank of^Maharashtra Rep by its Chief Manager Kukatpally Branch,^{Radhakrishna Estate} Road No.4, KPHB Colony Kukatpally, Hydera bad-500⁰⁷²

¶13

Sri Attota Venkata Sai^Praveen S/o Sri A, ChalaPathi Rao Aged 36^years, Occ:Business R/o H.No.8-4812/2

¶14

Srinivasa Colony, Boduppa^I Hyderabad 500 039

¶15

lvlrs. Attota Akhila W/o Sri Attota Venkata Sai Praveen

¶16

Aged about 38^years, Occ:Business R/o H.No.A-4812/2

¶17

Srinivasa Colony, Bodu^ppaI Hydera bad 500 039

¶18

... ResPondent

¶19

Counsel for the Applicant Respondentl&2Bank Respondents 3 & 4

¶20

: Mr. Chunchu Kishore : Ex parte : Dismissed for default

/fuxs

Page 2 of4

SA No.84/2025

-:ORDER:-

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Appltcation u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act") to set aside all the measures of the respondent bank under Secs.13(4) and 14 of the Act, including taking physical possession of the application schedule property pursuant to advocate commissioner letter dated 06.02.2025 in crl.MP No.12/2025 on the file of learned Additional Chief Judicial N4agistrate, Medchat-Matkajgiri.

¶26

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he is neither borrower nor mortgagor, he is the owner of the application schedule property y virtue of registered sale deed Doc.No.498 of 2005 dated 20.01.2005 and rectification deed dated 02.04.2013. He executed namesake/nominal sale deed in favour of 3rd respondent so as to raise loan from 2nd respondent bank and arrange finance to the applicant. However, applicant received only advance amount and not entire sale consideration. The applicant is in actual^{possessionof the} property. While so on 06.02.2025 the advocate commissioner issued notice to the applicant and tenants therein to^vacate the^property within fifteen deeds. Applicant had been handed over copy^of possession notice dated O2.OA.2O24 issued to respondents 3 and 4 and legal notice allegedly issued to^{the applicantby the 3'd} respondent. No notice was affixed on the^{subject property.The 3d} respondent cannot create mortgage on the^{propertybelonging to the} applicant. Hence this SA.

¶27

The respondents 1 and 2 bank^{was set ex} parte on 28.03.2025 as called absent and^{no representatioD;lhougha} counsel was^present and sought tlme to file vakalat. OBao*

¶28

Page 3 of4

¶29

sA No.84/2025

¶30

AS 4. The SA was^{dlsmissed against the respondents 3 and 4} notice was not taken on^{them despite instructions on number} of occasions.

¶31

be 5. Learned counsel for the applicant^{reported that orders may} passed based on record. Perused^{the material brought on record'}

¶32

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

¶33

i) Whether the applicant^{made out any valid ground to} quash the measures of the^{respondentagainst the}

¶34

application schedule^{propertYas praYed for?}

¶35

ii) To what relief?

¶36

Point No.^(i):

¶37

Admittedly the applicant^{had been providedwith a copy of the} legal notice dated 18.09.2024^{issuedby the 3d respondent-borrower} of respondent bank,^{to the applicant herein. The contents of the legal} notice make lt clear that^{the 3'd respondent purchasedthe appllcation} schedule^property from the^{applicant vide sale deedDoc.No.599 of} 2023 dated 07,07.2023^{registered at S.R.O.,} Quthubullapur^{by paying} the entire sale consideration of^{Rs.3,44,00,000/- i.e.,Rs.84 lakhs via} RTGS and Rs.2.6O crores vide^DD dated^{30.77,2022 beinghousing} toan availed from the respondent^{bank. In view of this, the applicant's} averment that he executed a^{namesake/nominalsale deedis} meritless and falls to^{ground. The applicant failed to place on record} proof of availing appropriate legal remedy for specific^{performanceif} he had not received the sale consideration^{from the 3'd respondent. It} is also not the case of the applicant that^{he has taken steps disputing} the facts of the legal^{notice about paymentof sale conslderation,not} handing over actual^{possessionetc. The rectification deed is of 2013} whereas the registered sale deed executed^{by the appllcant in favour} of 3'd respondent^is of^{2023.Havingkeptsilent withoutseekinglegal}

,zM^.&,o /,/ P

Page 4 of 4

SA No.84/2025

remedy for specific performance and without issulng at least a reply to the legal notice, the applicant cannot seek to quash the measures of the respondent bank.

¶42

In view of the aforesaid facts manifest on record, I have no hesitation to conclude that the applicant failed to make out any valid ground to set aside the measures of the respondent bank under the provisions of the Act, 2002 against the application schedule property. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶43

Point No.(ii):

¶44

In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶45

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶46

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

¶47

(Typed to my dictotion by the PS, corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22'd doy of August, 2025).

¶48

(RAfiESHWAR fig*"KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Sri vijaykumar v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri vijaykumar v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S. K.S. Care Hospital

Akepongu Chinna Edanna versus Canara Bank

Ms Lakshmi Bham Bham Baba Medical and General Sores versus State Bank of India

Ski Metal Craft versus Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Swathi Dental Manufacturer

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mohammadmahdi Kelidari