Dismissed

Ms Ramsethu Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank

DRT9 Apr 2026SA/110/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application challenging the bank's possession of schedule property. The court held the unregistered long-term lease was invalid under the Transfer of Property Act and the bank had the right to possession as a secured creditor after auction sale.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; Interlocutory Applications pending stood closed.

Ms Ramsethu Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE O9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

Securitization Application No.110 OF 2O2S

¶5

M/s Ramasethu Infrastructure pvt. Ltd Rep by Kancharal Srinivas Rao Office 4-4-1/3,^yV Rao Estate Jakkampudi, Near CNG Gas Bunk VUayawada 520012 And also Plot No.29B, Sector B My Home Ankura, Manmole Village Ra macha nd ra pu ra m Ma nda I Sanga Reddy

¶6

) .. ... ..Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Canara Bank SAM Branch, Secunderabad Rep by its Authorized Officer

¶9

Sri N^prabhakar Reddy S/o N. Venkat Reddy Aged 60 years, Occ:Business R/o Flat No.702, H.No.2_2_18/19 Sai Anapurna Apartment, DD Colony Hyderabad 500013

¶10

M/s Naolin Infrastructure pvt Ltd Rep by its Director prabhakar Reddy Nallapu

¶11

S/o N. Venkat Reddy, aged 59 yeais Occ: Business, R/o 6-3- 1090/ 113 Uma Hyderabad House, 3d Floor Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda Hyderabad 500082

¶12

.. .. ..Respondents.

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Mukesh Sarma counsel for 7st Respondent Bank : Mr. Manav Grecir Thomas fu**

2ol4

sA No'110/2025

Reslondent^No.2

Respondent^No.3

No rePresentation

Ex Parte

.:ORDER:-

Applicant^{filed the present SecuritisationApplication uls 17 of} the Securitization^{and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and} Enforcement^{of SecurityInterest Act' 2OO2(hereinaftert:t::::Ot" "} "Act, 2002")^{assailing the measuresof the respondent againstSA} schedulepropertieSunderSecs.l3(4)includingdispossessionvide Advocate^{Commissionernotice dated24'O2'2025 '}

¶22

The^{case of the applicant' in brief is that it took application} schedule^{propertyon tease from 2nd respondent videunregistered} aurco^{zr'tz'zoz2for a periodof three vears reservinga} ";r";.""; monthly^{rent of Rs'50'OOO/- and furtherextendedfor another three} years. During^{subsisting tenancy'action of respondent bank in taking} pivsicaf^{possessionwithout following due process of law' is illegal'}

¶23

The 1't^{respondent bank filed reply statement withdocuments'} Theaverments,briefly,arethattheapplicantisnoneotherthan successful^{bidder of one of the subject properties of SA 43912024'} where^{the allegedtenancy has never been disclosed and the applicant} herein^{has not been madea party The unregisteredlease agreement} for a^{longer term cannot be considered The respondentbank is} proceeding^{aqainst the application scheduleproperty by virtue of} registered^{MoDTs and statutorynoticeshave duly been served on} SA is^{liable to be dismissed} borrower/guarantors/moftgagors'

¶24

and^no called^absent 4. R3^was set ex Parte^{on 09 04 2025 as} Thouoh R2 entered ,AW despite^{service ofnotice'} representation

¶25

3of4

¶26

SA No.110/2025

¶27

appearance through its counsel Mr.V. Ravinder, failed to file reply statement despite adjournments and conditional order, Accordingly right of R2 filing reply statement was forfeited on 03.11.2025,

¶28

Representative of learned counsel for applicant reported orders may be passed based on records. Heard learned counsel for the 1st respondent bank. Perused the material documents brought on record.

¶29

Learned counsel for the 1tt respondent bank reiterated the version as in the reply statement. While relying on the documents filed along with Memo dated 13.02.2026, learned counsel submitted that the subject property has already been sold in the auction on t7.0L.2025, sale certificate was issued on 17.01.2025 and^physical possession of property has been handed over to auction purchaser in )uly, 2025. Accordingly learned counsel sought for dismissal of the SA as nothing survives in the SA.

¶30

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶31

(i) Whether the Applicant made out any valid ground for setting aside the action of 7tt respondent in taking physical possession of the SA schedule property, as prayed for?

¶32

(ii) To what relief?

¶33

Point No. (i):

¶34

Admittedly the lease agreement pressed into service is for more than a year (3+3 years from ZO22) and an unregistered one, Section to7 0f Transfer of property Act crearry mandates that that any rease beyond a period of one year shall be by way of a registered instrument. It is weil settled taw emphasi seA OVrffi,ble Apex

(-/;qu^-

4of 4

SA No'110/202s

Court in^{judgement (BajrangShyamsunderAgarwatvs' Central Bank of} India reportedⁱⁿ [(2019)^{9 Supreme CourtCases 94]} '^{that no rights can} be claimed^{under the Transfer of Property Act in respectof leaseof} more than a^{year, on the strengthof an unregisteredinstrumentas} per Sec.107 of the^{Transfer of Property Act'}

¶39

g.Videorderdatedlo.o3.2025,thisTribunalgrantedthree months time^{to vacate the property in the interest of principles of} natural^{justice whichhad already expired'}

¶40

Being^{secured creditor, the 1't respondent bank is entitled} under Sec.14^{of the Act, 2OO2 to take physical possessionof secured} asset. As^{informed by the bank, the propertyhas already been sold'} sale certificate^{issued and physical possession handed over to the} auction^{purchaser. The applicantbeing a third party has no locus} standi to^{question such measures,without any valid ground'} Accordingly,^{the SA is liable to be dismissed'}

¶41

Point No.(ii):

¶42

In the^{result, the Securitization Applicationfails and is hereby} dismissed.

¶43

consequently,^{Interlocutory Applicationspending, if any' shall} stand closed.^{No order as to costs' Communicate a copy of this order} to the^{parties concernedand uploadin official website'}

¶44

rTvnetl lo mv^{dictolionby the PS' correcled' signed and prutnouncedbvmein lhe open} "ii,ton*i,theOth^{dayofAprir.20261.}

¶45

,OW**

¶46

rnh#srlivAR^KorHE) PRESIDING^OFFICER

Ms Ramsethu Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Ramsethu Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 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

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Golden Tulip Implex India Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S. Madina Fruit Co.

Mr.M.Ganesh versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/s. S N Agro Trading.

K Veerender Reddy versus City Union Bank Limited

Akkapaly Mahesh versus Home First Finance Company India Limited