Dismissed

AKRamesh v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT3 Jul 2026SA/143/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application filed by a third party claiming to be an absolute owner of the schedule property. The court found the applicant lacked locus standi as the sale deed was executed by his mother via GPAT, held that the application was a gross abuse of process of law since the auction was not successful, and consequently dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application is liable to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

AKRamesh versus Bank of Maharashtra — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-IIAT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE^{O3RO DAYOF} 2026

¶3

'ULY,

¶4

PRESENT: SH.^{RAMESHwAR KOTHE,B'com,L'LB'(Hons'), M'a'}

¶5

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶6

Securitization^{ApPlication No'143 OF 2O26}

¶7

Mr.A.K. Ramesh S/o Late^{A. Kannabiran} Aged 60^{years,Occ: Buslness} Rlo l-tl-252/49,^{Motilal Nagar} BegumPet,^{Secunderabad500015}

¶8

.......Applicant.

¶9

Versus

¶10

Bank of^Maharashtra ChamPaPet^Branch #9-125m^{ReddY ColonY} Nagarjuna^{Sagar Road} OpP. D-Mart,^ChamPaPet Hyderabad⁵⁰⁰⁰⁵⁹ 2. Bank of Maharashtra ChamPaPet^Branch #9-125m^{Reddy Colony} Naqarjuna^SagarRoad opp. o-t'lart,^champapet Hyderabad⁵⁰⁰⁰⁵⁹ 3. Haneesh^{Babu VuYYuru} s/o V. Rammohan^Rao Aoed 48 vears,^{Occ: Pvt service} R/o Plot^{No.35,Flat No 1o2} Vindhva Arcadia,^{Lane 4} Mithil;^{Nagar, Pragathi Nagar} ,......ResPondents' HYderabad⁵⁰⁰⁰⁹⁰ :Mr.R, Subramanian counsel for^{the APPlicant} Bank:Mr.G.^{Adrian KiranRaj} Counsel^{for ResPondent 1 & 2} 3'd Respondent trr runwrr,

2 ol6

SA No.143/202G

-:ORDER:-

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (hereinafter ..the Act,, for short) assailing the proceedings of 1st respondent bank against the SA schedule property through sale notice dated 13.02.2026 fixing auction on 17.03.2026 and permit the applicant to pay the entire amount of Rs.1,30,95,401l- towards closure of housing loan account.

¶15

The case of the applicant as per averments of the application, in brief, is that he is a third party to the proceedings and absolute owner and possessor of the SA schedule property which he sold to 3d respondent. As the 3.d respondent failed to pay the full sale consideration initiate steps against him as per law. The possession notice dated 07.11.2025 issued in the name of 3d respondent was pasted on the schedule property whereupon the applicant addressed letter to respondent bank. Later on the 3d respondent revealed about availing credit facilities to a tune of Rs.1.31 crores from the respondent bank agaitist mortgage of schedule property, defautted in repayment due to financial constraints and Rs.13.50 lakhs he was liable to pay. According to applicant, 3d respondent is trying to close the loan account within eight months, time.

¶16

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that 3.d respondent is the owner of the SA schedule property by virtue of sale deed Doc'No'2677 /2078, he deposited the same vide registered M.DT dated 04.05.201g towards sect Rs. 1. 16 crores and extended ;:t:*: lT:l["Ir":J:::HT] [ takhs by executing resistered MoDT on O r.t}.2o2>)f\f,;.cou n, O :_

(L/'.:'>,'"

3of6

SA No.143/2026

respondent became NPA due to defaults and^{therefore SARFAESI} measures had been initiated by issuing demand^{notice under} Sec.13(2) which was^{personallyserved on borrowerand possession} notice under Sec.13(4) of the Act,^{2002 which was served, published} ln two newspapers and affixed on the^{property in strictcompliance of} Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest^{(Enforcement)Rules, 2002} ("Rules" hereinafter). Vacate notice was also afflxed on the^schedule property. The respondent bank also served impugned^{e-auctionsale} notice on borrower besides^{publishingthe same.Respondentbank} strictly adhered to the^{procedure of law HenceSA is liable to be} dismissed.

¶21

No rePresentation for the applicant.^{Accordinglyhis rightto} forfeited vide docket^{order dated 01.07.2026.} advance a rguments^was 3'd respondent^{was set} ex^parte on 07.05.2026^{as called absentand} notice sent to^{him was retunedas'unclaimed'.} no representation since 5. Heard^{learned counsel for respondentbank and perused the} written arguments^{filed by him, along with material broughton} record.

¶22

Learned counsel for the^{respondents1 and 2 bankin reiteration} of the reply^{statement,submittedthat the SA scheduleproperty ls the} secured asset of^{the respondentbank by virtue of registered} Memorandum of^{Deposlt of Title Deeds executedby the3'd} respondent,^{wherebyhe depositedthe sale deed dated 02'05'2018'} Due to default in^{repayment of housing toan and top-uploan by the} 3'd respondent^{and others,respondentinitiated Securitizatlon} measures. The^{statutory notices have duly been servedon} borrower/mortgagor.^{The possession notice was duly affixedon}

4of6

SA No.143/2026

secured asset besides^publication in tow newspapers in^accordance with Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules, 2002. After obtaininq^valuation report, the respondent^proceeded to issue e-auction sale notice dated 13.02.2026 fixing auction on 17.03.2026. The impugned auction notice has also been duly served on 3d respondent. However, scheduled auction was not successful. The applicant beinq third^party has no /ocus standi to^question the measures of the respondent bank by filing the^present application. Accordingly he sought for dismissal of the sA.

¶27

Now, the points that arise for consideration are;-

¶28

(i) Whether the applicant has made out any valid ground to set aside the e-auction sale notice dated 13.02.2026 fixing auction of SA schedule property on 17.03.2026 under the provisions of the Act, 2002 and consequential prayer to grant permission to pay outstanding amount and close the housing loan account?

¶29

(ii) To what relief?

¶30

Point No.(i):-

¶31

Admittedly the impugned auction sale scheduled on !7.O3.2026 was not successful. Accordingly the cause of action in filing the present Securitization Application does not survive.

¶32

Further, there is no dispute that the applicant is a third party to the Securitization proceedings initiated by the respondent bank in respect of SA schedule property. The applicant claims to have sold the property to the borrower/mortgagor i.e.. 3.d respondent herein, but did not receive full sale consideration. Except bald statement, to have fu...t-.t (t/ 'n'"

¶33

5of6

¶34

sA No.143/2025

¶35

taken steps against^{3rd respondent,no single documenthas been filed} to that extent.

¶36

A close observation^{from the sale deed Doc'No 267712018,} dated 02.05.2018^{makesit clear that the aforesaidsale deedwas} executed by the^{mother of the applicantinfavour of3'd} respondent/borrower/mortgagor^{represented by the applicantas her} General Power of^{AttorneyHolder in respect of Ground Floor of an} extent of 55OO^{squarefeet with undividedshare of land of 149 4} square^yards in^{"ARCOT HOUSE" bearingNo'1-11-252/49, Motilal} Nagar, Begumpet,^{Secunderabad.It manifestsfrom the sale deed that} the vendor^{received the entiresale considerationby way of cheques'} The registered^{sale deed was deposited by the 3'd respondent towards} security for the^{toans availed by him with the respondent bank} immediately on^{04.05.2018vlde registeredMemorandumof Deposit} of Title Deeds.^{The applicantfailed to establishhis /ocus standi to} question the measures of^{the respondentbank against the SA} schedule^{property since he was not owner of the property even before} executing the^{sale deed in favour of 3'd respondent' In fact' as per} covenants of the^{sale deed, applicant's motherSmt A' SharadaDevl} was the owner^{of the property and applicant acted on behalf of her} only as a General^{Power of Attorney holder' To know the locusstandi} of applicant to file^{the present Securitization Applicationon behalfof} hls mother,^{the copy of GPA is not placed on record'The Applicationis} filed as if he^{was owner of the scheduleproperty which tantamountto} misrepresentation^{before the court of law Even assuminghe has} locus standi to^{question the measures,the sale deed executedin} favour of 3'd^{respondenthas not been cancelled till} y:?^{O' u"'} competent court. (/'6nt'*

¶37

6of6

¶38

SA No.143/2026

¶39

In view of the above discussion, I am constrained to find that the present Application is filed in gross abuse of^process of law. Accordingly, the Securitization Application is liable to be dismissed.

¶40

Point No,(ii):

¶41

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

¶42

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications pending if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶43

(Typed to my dictotion by the Steno, cotected, signed ond prcnounced by me in the open court on this the O3td doy ofJuly,2026).

¶44

(r'rr'

¶45

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

AKRamesh v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

AKRamesh v. Bank of Maharashtra

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

State Bank of India versus Venkatram

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Lubna Enterprises.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Wings On Wheels.

Yes Bank versus Pavani Power Systems Private Limited

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus suryaprakash

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus MMr. Mekala Syam Prakash Reddy