Dismissed

Komakula Swaroopa Rani v. Canara Bank

DRT14 Oct 2025SA/94/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application filed by an applicant abroad through her GPA holder, holding the application not maintainable as the GPA itself was invalid due to the applicant's absence from India on the alleged execution date.

What did the court decide?

None. The Securitization Application is dismissed as not maintainable.

Komakula Swaroopa Rani versus Canara Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.94,/2022

¶5

Smt. Komakula Swaroopa Rani W/o. Sri. K. Ramesh Age: 45yrs, Occ: House Hold, Presently residing at: # 15206 Plumstone DR, Eden Partie, MN, USA^.55347 Rep. by her GPA Holder Sri. Komakula Swarajyam S/o. Late Ramaiah, age: 69yrs, Occ: Rtd Employee, Rlo.2-17-127 l7 13, Sri. Raghavendra Nagar Colony, Opp. Survey of India, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District^(Old), Medchal Malkajgiri District^(New)

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Canara Bank, ARM Branch # 3-5-879, Ruby House, 2"d Floor Opp. Old MLA Quarters, Himayathnagar, HYderabad Rep. by its authorized officer

¶9

Sri. Mamidala Sridhar S/o. Sri Gouraiah, Age: Major, Occ: Managing Partner of M/s. Durga Bhavani Agro^{Tech Industries} R/o. H.No. 3-10;53, lst^Lane, Reddy Colony, Hanmkonda,^{Warangal District}

¶10

Sr. Gandla Poornachandar S/o. Gandla Rajaiah Age: Major, Occ: Not Rlo.H.No.22l4l2 Warangal Urban Respondents Counsel for the 1 { 00T lffiari

¶11

Counsel for the Respondents No.2 Reserued on Pronounced on Uploaded on 14.10.2025

¶12

SA.Nc.94/2022

¶13

-:ORDERi

¶14

The Applicant filed the present Securitization Application under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, to set-aside all the proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 1 Bank against the application schedule property including the Sale Notice dated 16.08.2019, fixing the auction of the subject property on 25.09.2019 and the acceptance letter dated 25.O9.2019.

¶15

The averments made by the Applicants in the application, in brief, are as under:-

¶16

i) The Applicant is neither the guarantor nor created any mortgage in respect of the immovable property belonging to the Applicant for any Credit facilities availed by Respondent No.2 in the name of M/s. Durga Bhavani Agro Tech Industries, represented by its managing partner i.e., Respondent No.2 or any. The Applicant never executed the alleged Specific General Power of Attorney (SGPA) dated 08.01.2010 in favour of Respondent No.2, and the said alleged document i.e., S.G.P.A dated 08.O1.2010 and its contents are fictitious, fabricated and impersonation of document created by Respondent No.2 by forging the signature, including affixture of photographs, which do not belong to the Applicant. The alleged Deposit of Title Deed i.e., Gift Settlement Deed bearing Doc. No.1O43 l2OO4 dated 14.O5.2OO4 with the Bank in relation to the subject matter of Credit facilities and its alleged conformation letter of evidence in deposit of Title Deeds dated 22.03.2O1O are all false, fictitious and fabricated documents. The Applicant has already dehied/ disputed theaforesaid documents Affidavit filed in OA.No.42212011 on the file of e is pending for disposal. The Applicant got

¶17

t r4$"i""r.d 08.08.201 I from the Bank contending in September , 2OO9, and she came back to I and again left India in April, 201 I . Hence

¶18

registered S.G.P.A dated 08.O1.2010 and its

¶19

SA.No.94/2022

¶20

registration in favour of Respondent No.2 is far from truth. Further the Applicant, represented by her G.p.A Holder Sri. Komakula Swarajayam filed Civil Suit against the Respondent No.2 vide O.S.No. 1076120ll on the file of the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge at Warangal for cancellation of the alleged SGpA dated 08.O1.2010.

¶21

ii) The name of the borrower firm was M/s. Sreenidhi Agro Tech Industries and same was changed to M/s. Durga Bhavani Agro Tech Industries but, same is not supported by the letter dated 28.03.2012 issued by Department of Industries wherein, it is evident that alleged name change has not happened till now and there is no name change as per its records. The Applicant, represented by her G.P.A i.e., Sri. Komakula Swarajayam filed Private Complaint u/sec. 200 of Cr.P.C on the file of IV Addl. Judicial l"t Class Magistrate at Warangal against all the culprits, who created false, fictitious and impersonated document and also the alleged mortgage by forging the signature of the Applicant and the said complaint, is registered as F.I.R.No. 1 69 l2Ol2 dated 14.05.2012 and same is pending. Respondent No.1 Bank did not take any steps till now against the properties belonging to Respondent No.2 and the Bank is acting in collusion with Respondent No.2 to grab the subject matter property belonging to the Applicant, which is illegal. The subject matter property was sold by Respondent No. I Bank to Respondent No.3 herein. Immediately after knowing about the said sale the Applicant submitted a letter dated 07.10.2019 to Respondent No. 1 Bank sought all information relating to the alleged sale but, the a+t ent No.1 Bank did not provide any information.No.1 Bank did not provide any information.Bank did not provide any information.did not provide any information.not provide any information.provide any information.information.

¶22

a+t ent No.1 Bank did not provide any information.No.1 Bank did not provide any information.Bank did not provide any information.did not provide any information.not provide any information.provide any information.information. ttrw The ent No.1 Bank did not classi$r the subject matter

¶23

14frtT t as Non Performing Asset (NPA) and no notice was served Applicant including Demand Notice u/sec. 13(2), Notice u/sec. 13(4), Sale Notice under Rule 8(6) and

¶24

1. of the Act and Rules, 20O2. The Respondent No. I Bank

¶25

SA.No.94/2022

¶26

did not obtain valuation report from its approved valuer and sold the subject matter property at a very much lower price than the market value. The present value of the property would be more than Rs.2.O0 crores but, the Respondent Bank No.l sold the property illegally for Rs.90,90,000/-. The E-Auction Notice dated 16.08.2019 was neither affixed on the property nor published in daily newspapers and did not follow Rule 9(1) of the Rules 2002 Hence the S.A.

¶27

o. The Respondent No. 1 Bank filed its Reply Statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the S.A. The contentions of the Respondent No. 1 Bank, in brief, are as under:-

¶28

M/s. Durga Bhavani Agro Tech Industries was enjoying credit facilities with S.B.H, Shivaji Nagar Branch at Warangal from 2006 in the name and style of M/s. Srinidhi Agro Tech Industries. The said partnership firm was reconstituted in the^year 2008 and the name was changed to M/s. Durga Bhavani Agro Tech Industries. The account of the said firm was taken over by the Respondent No.1 Bank at Hanumakonda Branch from S.B.H. The said firm has availed Term Loan of Rs.42.50 Lakhs, OCC/ODBD limit of Rs.4.OO Crores and Term Loan limit of Rs.29.64 Lakhs on 26.012.2009. The entire business transactions of the lirm^were notrouted through the Respondent No. 1 Bank, supply of rice by the firm to FCI was also stopped and variation in closing stocks was also observed. Further, the unit stopped functioning, OCC account was not operated and there were arrears in^{Term Loan} account and as such the account was classified as Nonperforming Account (NPA) on O4.O4.2OI1. The Respondent No. 1 issued Demand Notice on 16.05.201 1 and Possession

¶29

.]. on'16.07.2011 by taking possession of the unit^property at Atmakur, Warangal. The Possession Notice^was

¶30

148[r 1:rlpub in^oThe Hindu" and "Andhra Jyothi" daily on 23. 11. The Respondent Bank No.t has issued another Notice dated 27.07.2011 by taking possession of 7

¶31

SA.No.94/2022

¶32

Open Plots and the said Possession Notice was published in "The Hindu" and "Andhra Jyothi" newspapers on 03.08.201 1.

¶33

ii) The Applicant has registered G.P.A in favour of Sri. Mamidala Sridhar i.e., Respondent No.2 herein to sign any loan document and give surety to avail credit facilities from the Respondent No.1 Bank and further to deposit the original title deeds with the Bank for creating mortgage in favour of the Respondent No.1 Bank. The Original Gift Settlement Deed bearing Doc. No. 1043 I 2OO4 has been deposited with the Bank and same has been marked as an exhibit in OA.No.422 l2Oll ar^d is under the custody of this Tribunal. The Applicant has filed multiple cases and nowhere it is proven that the said alleged registered GPA is fabricated. The O.S. No.1O76/2011 has been dismissed for default on 30.06.2017 on the file of Ld. PSJ, Warangal and there are no Orders against the Respondent No. 1 Bank.

¶34

iii) The Respondent No.l Bank has invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and brought the mortgaged properties for auction in order to recover the debt. The machinery located in the rice mill was put to auction on 11.05.2016 and the highest bid was Rs.26.60 lakhs but, the bidder did not pay the entire bid amount and so the amount was forfeited. The machinery located in the rice mill was again put to auction on 11.07.2016 and the property was sold for Rs.23.65 lakhs in the e-auction conducted on 28.03.2018 in pursuance of Sale Notice dated 16.02.2018, the unit property located at Atmakur, Warangal, was sold for Rs.1.91 crores and the physical possession of the propert5r along with sale registration is done in favour of the highest bidder. An open plot ted at Benoni Mega Township, Pochampally, was put to on 17.O4.2O19 and same was sold for Rs.6.3O lakhs. The

¶35

es under contention was put to auction on 25.09.2019 in

¶36

u * 14otl zffi rll ce of Sale Notice dated 18.08.2019. The Sale Notice was

¶37

on the schedule property and was published in "New

¶38

\t$,'*,s .'iliio;':"f:irfl dian Express" and "Namasthe Telangana" newspapers dated ::;:r-::=za/'

¶39

S,A.No.94/2022

¶40

23.08.2019. The said Sale Notice was also aflixed on the subject property and the sale Notice was also sent to the registered address by registered post as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. The property was valued by a certified panel valuer of the Bank and only basing on the valuation report dated O8.O7.2O19 the reserve price of the propertSr was fixed. The Applicant also filed a w.p. No. 249Tg/2019 before the Hon,ble High Court of Telangana challenging the SARFAESI actions initiated by the Respondent No.1 Bank. The present S.A has been frled by the Applicant only to drag on the matter and to put hurdles in the recovery of the public debt by the Respondent No. 1 Bank. Hence the present S.A may be dismissed with exemplary costs.

¶41

The Respondent No.2 did not choose to lile his Reply. As the Applicant

¶42

has failed to take notice to Respondent No.3, the present S.A is dismissed as against Respondent No.3.

¶43

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 Bank frled his Written Arguments reiterating the version of the Respondent No. 1, as stated supra, and contending as under:-

¶44

i) The Applicant herein is closely related to the debtor by virtue of her father, who was the partner of the debtor and her brother-inlaw i.e., Respondent No.2 and her sister were the partners before the debtor stopped functioning. Therefore it is not out of ordinary doubt, the Applicant signed the s.G.p.A in the best interests of btor.

¶45

t vide S.G.P.A dated O8.O 1 .2O lO has granted powers t No.2 to sign as surety for the loan proposed to be

¶46

1 4 06pr2p5rv btor, to create equitable mortgage as required by t Na. I Bank over her property i.e., the Gift property and to take all such other necessary

¶47

!'A.No.94/2022

¶48

actions to create a charge in favour of the Respondent No.1 Bank, including registration of any deed.The Respondent No.2 in pursuance of the powers drawn under the S.G.p.A has executed guarantee agreement dated 10.03.2010 where by the Applicant was appointed as guarantor in favour of the debtor to the extent of Rs.4,72,14,000/-. The allegation of the Applicant that the alleged GPA and the loan documents are created by fraud and forgery etc., cannot be decided by this Tribunal under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. ld. Counsel for the lst Respondent Bank has further contended that the DRT is not empowered to deal with and decide the issues of fraud, forgery etc., when any party makes such allegations in the application filed u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act and that it is only the Civil Court to deal with and decide such issues. In this regards, Ld. Counsel has placed his reliance in the decisions of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of " Mardia Ctemicals and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors., [2004 (4) SSC 31 ]/' arrd "Nahar Indutrial Enterprbes Ltd., I/s. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation" [2009 (B) SCC 646]. Ld. Counsel further contended that, the Respondent No. 1 Bank as a secured creditor has right to proceed against the debtor and all the guarantors jointly and severally and therefore, there is no fault in placing the Applicants property for auction. The Applicant has maintained stark silence on the fact that the original gift settlement deed is in the custody of the Respondent No. I Bank. The Respondent No. I Bank has every right to proceed against the subject property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and the Respondent No.1 followed the procedure laid down under the and Rules made thereunder, and as such to be dismissed.

¶49

14lcl:&.fj 6. t choose to advance his arguments.

¶50

.foi'^{considerationare,-}

¶51

¶52

.54.No.g4n122

¶53

Whether the Applicant has made out any valid grounds for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the lst Respondent Bank against the application schedule property?

¶54

ii) To what relieP

¶55

Potnt No.(l)r

¶56

The crucial contention of the Applicant is that she never executed the SGPA dt.08.O1.2010 in favour of Respondent No.2 and that she was in abroad and she was not in India and that the said SGpA and its contents are fictitious, fabricated and impersonated document created by Respondent No.2 and that all the alleged loan and security documents said to have been executed in favour of Respondent No.l, including creation of mortgage by deposit of original title deeds etcj., are also false, fabricated and impersonated documents and so the 1st Respondent Bank cannot proceed against her propert5r, described in the application schedule under the SARFAESI Act as it is not a valid secured asset.

¶57

I have perused decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Mardia Ch.emicals" case (supra) relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the lst Respondent Bank, wherein it has been held that, when a party alleges the action of the secured creditor to be fraudulent, to that limited extent, the jurisdiction of Civil Court can be invoked. The relevant portion in the said judgment is extracted below:-

¶58

"57. However, to o very limited extent jurisdiction of the civil court can olso be invoked, where for the oction of the secured creditor is olleged to be froudulent so obsurd ond untenoble which moy not require soy precisely to the extent the scope is civil court in the coses of English

¶59

1. It is to{"0&L aid^judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to decide the matters of fraud etc., AESI Act and in this regard, the Applicant has Court.

¶60

SA.No.94/2022

¶61

Ld. counsel for the l"t Respondent Bank further contended that, under the GPA dt.09.08.2011 executed by the guarantor Smt Komakula Swaroopa Rani in favour of Sri Komakula Swarajyam, the GpA holder has no specilic power to file applications under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT. Ld. counsel for the r"t Respondent Bank further contended that, as per the passport copies filed by the Applicant, they clearly show that the Applicant was not in India on 09.0g.2011, the date on which the GpA was allegedly signed by the Applicant in India and the alleged GPA cannot be said to give the GpA holder any power or authority to file the present SA.

¶62

I have gone through the copy of GpA dt.O9.Og.2O1l liled by the Applicant at page 112 of the sA. It is very clear that the said GpA was executed on 09.08.2011 at Warangal. The Applicant herself in her pleadings stated that, she went to USA in September , 2OOg and she came back to India in February 201r and against left India in April, 2011. So, even according to the Applicant, she left India in April, 2011. So, there is no possibilit5r of execution of the GpA on 09.0g.2011 by the Applicant and the said GpA cannot be said as a validly executed document. So, Sri Komakula Swarajyam, who filed the present SA, basing on the so called GpA dt.o9.og.201 1, is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this point is answered against the Applicant and in favour of the 1st Respondent Bank.

¶63

Polnt No.liilt

¶64

In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶65

,@N" copy of this order to the parties concerned. i"\in,ono^ro,n by her, conected, sigoed ond ptunounced by me in the open couft on this the 14b doy oI ii, !^{Iortotu 140mrus za.} t i,.'^{"'' *-,^jl} fi"\ffi"1o.oo","r.inyi rRESTDTNG oFFrcER 'ii :ir1'.n, ,"j.i€/ - !*6Ni;" \tpn!ill.igl *.-: "#;I,;;ffiffi;D.

Komakula Swaroopa Rani v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komakula Swaroopa Rani v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M S Balaji Business Corporation versus State Bank of India

Ms Rishab Plastic and Others versus Karur Vysya Bank

1.Smt v Rajamma versus Union Bank of India

Smt Kethe Swathi versus Development Credit Bank Ltd.

P Bala Rathnam versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Ramireddy Nanda Kishore