Dismissed

Aenugu Lakhmamma and others v. Sicom Limited

DRT25 Aug 2026SA/279/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitisation Application under the SARFAESI Act, applicants challenged auction measures concerning agricultural lands, claiming ancestral ownership. The Tribunal held that since applicants failed to provide evidence of mutation of their names in revenue records or the Dharani Portal following High Court directions, they could not establish a subsisting right, title, or interest. Conseque

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application is dismissed; interlocutory applications pending, if any, are closed; no order as to costs.

Aenugu Lakhmamma and others versus Sicom Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -^{II AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST,²⁰²⁶

¶4

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

¶5

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶6

Securitization Application^{No. 279 OF 2024}

¶7

Smt. Anugu Lakshmamma W/o A Buchi ReddY Aged about 75 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No. 2-51, Bahadurguda Naram Village, Chevella, Shamsabad^Mandal, R.R. District

¶8

Enugu Venkat ReddY, S/o A. Buchi^ReddY Aged about 52 Years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 2-52, Bahadurguda^{Naram Village,} Chevella, Shamsabad^Mandal,

¶9

R.R. District.

¶10

Anugu Narsi^ReddY @^{NarasimhaReddY,} S/o A. Buchi^ReddY Aged about 39 Years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 2-51, Bahadurguda^{Naram Village,} Chevella, Shamsabad^Mandal, R.R. District Applicants

¶11

Versus

¶12

M/s. SICOM^Ltd., ReP. bY its Manager, Office at Solitaire^{Corporate Park,} Building no 4,6th^Floor, Andheri Ghat^{KoParLink Road,} Chakala Andheri^{East, Mumbai-400093,} ReP bY its Authorised^Offi '"t',$\ 6fr,*,

¶13

Page 2 of 7

¶14

SA No.27912024

¶15

M/s. Jupiter Blo Science Ltd., Regd. Office at 24, Kolhar, IDA, Bidar, Karnataka - 585 401. Corporate Office at Street No.7, Aswin Colony, West Maredpally, Secunderabad

¶16

Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director Venkata Ramana Kalvakolanu, Aged about 62 years, R/o. Chennai.

¶17

Venkata Ramana Kalvakolanu, Aged about 62 years Chairman & Managing Director, M/s. Jupiter Bio Science Ltd., R/o 1H, I Floor, Windows Apartments, Katupakam Chennai

¶18

..... Respondents

¶19

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. V. V. Ramana Counsel for Respondent No.1 : M/s. Vakit Associated Counsel for Respondent No.2 & 3: Ex-parte

¶20

-:ORDER:-

¶21

The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicant u/s.t7 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2oo2 ("Act,, hereinafter for short) to set aside all the measures initiated by the respondent under section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, including impugned sale notice dated 30.05.2024 fixing the auction on 05.07.2024 in respect of the SA Schedule Properties.

¶22

The averments of the Application, in brief, are that applicants are the absolute owners and possessors of the agricultural lands forming the subject matter of the S.A., having derived title through their ancestors, whose names were reflected as pattadars and possessors in the revenue records from 1g55-58 onwards. It is contended that, pursuant to the ancestral succession, pattadar pass

OWo*n

Page 3 of 7

SA No. 27912024

Books and Title Deeds were issued in favour of the Applicants in respect of the respective extents covered by the S.A. Schedule Properties situated at Bahadurguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District. The Applicants further state that, after implementation of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020, their names were not reflected in the Dharani Portal and the subject survey numbers were placed in the prohibitory list, compelling them to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana by filing separate writ petitions, wherein they were directed to approach the District Collector for necessary correction of the revenue records. The Applicants contend that the said process is still pending. It is further averred that, during the^pendency of the said^proceedings, the 1st Respondent Bank published the impugned Public E-Auction cum Sale Notice dated 3t.O5.2024, proposing to auction the subject agricultural lands for recovery of the dues of the 2nd Respondent, on the basis of the alleged mortgage created by the 3rd Respondent. The Applicants allege that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents had no valid right, title or interest over the subject lands and that the alleged mortgage was created on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The Applicants further contend that the subject properties are agricultural lands and therefore fall within the exclusion under Section 31(j) ofthe SARFAESI Act, and that the Bank failed to comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules, including Rules B(5) and 8(7) of the Security Interest^{(Enforcement)} Rules, 2002, (hereinafter "Rules" for short) relating to valuation, description and affixture of the sale notice. It is also alleged that the demand notice and possession notice are invalid, that the properties have been undervalued and that the Respondent Bank has no valid or subsisting security interest over the schedule^properties. On these grounds, the Applicants seek setting aside of ,[e imPugned sale notice and the consequential SARFAEST measur{zffit{

¶27

Page 4 of 7

¶28

SANo.27912024

¶29

The Respondent Company filed its reply and additional reply statements along with supporting documents. The averments thereof, in brief, are that Respondent No.2, being the borrower, and Respondent No.3, being the guarantor, had availed Term Loan facilities and created an equitable mortgage over the SA Schedule properties, by deposit of title deeds, which was evidenced by Memoranda of Entry dated 05.05.2011 and 06.12.2010. It is stated that, upon default, the Bank issued a demand notice dated l6.Ol.2OL2 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and also instituted O.A. Nos.462 of 2012 and 642 of 2012 before DRT-I, Hyderabad, which were allowed vide orders dated 25.02.20t7 and 31.05.20L7, holding the Bank's claim to be secured by mortgage over the subject properties. Pursuant thereto, Recovery Proceedings bearing RP Nos.1635 of 2OI7 and 14 of 2018 were initiated and are stated to be pending. It is further contended that the Bank thereafter issued a Public E-Auction cum Sale Notice dated 30.05.2024 in respect of the mortgaged property, fixing the auction on 05.07.2024; however, the said auction was subsequently cancelled and the cancellation was published in Deccan Chronicle and Andhra Jyothi on L8.06.2024. On this basis, Respondent No.1 contends that the present S.A., filed on 01.07.2024, is infructuous. It is further submitted that the Applicants' claim regarding ownership of the schedule properties involves a disputed question of title and alleged overlap between their lands and the mortgaged properties, which, according to the Bank, cannot be adjudicated in the present SARFAESI proceedings. The Bank also disputes the locus standi of the Applicants, contending that they are neither parties to the loan transaction or SARFAESI proceedings nor tenants of the mortgaged property. The allegations that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 created the mortgage by producing forged or fabricated documents M*or had no

¶30

Page 5 of 7

¶31

SANo.27912024

¶32

right, title or interest over the mortgaged properties are denied. Accordingly, respondent prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶33

Summonses were duly served upon Respondent Nos.2 and 3. However, Respondent No.2 was set ex parte on 29.04.2025, while Respondent No.3 was set ex parte on 20.L2.2024.

¶34

5, Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the written arguments filed by the applicants, respondent and also perused the material brought on record.

¶35

Learned counsel for the applicants in its written arguments would dispute the genuineness of the Memoranda of Entry and contend that the Bank has failed to produce the primary documents evidencing the alleged mortgage and the statutory notices issued under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, Accordingly, the Applicants maintain that the Bank has failed to establish a valid security interest over the schedule property or compliance with the prescribed procedure and reiterate their prayer for declaration that the property is not a secured asset and for setting aside of the consequential SARFAESI measures.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent in its written arguments reiterated the content of its reply and would submit that Respondent No.2, as borrower and Respondent No.3, as guarantor, availed Term Loan facilities from Respondent No.1 Bank by mortgaging SA Schedule Properties, by deposit of tiUe deeds, evidenced by Memoranda of Entry dated 05.05.2011 and 06.12.2010. Upon default, the Bank issued demand notice dated 16.01.2012 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and also obtained orders in O.n.

Owo*

Page 6 of 7

SANo.27912O24

Nos.462 of 20t2 and 642 of 2012, which were allowed by the Tribunal, followed by issuance of Recovery Certificates and initiation of recqvery^proceedings. Thereafter, the Bank issued Public E-Auction cum Sale Notice dated 30.05.2024 in respect of the secured asset; however, the proposed auction was subsequently cancelled and the cancellation was^published on 18.06.2024. The learned counsel^for Respondent No.1 contended that the^present S.A., having been^filed after cancellation of the auction, is infructuous and liable to^be dismissed. Accordingly, the learned counsel sought dismissal of^the S.A. with exemplary costs.

¶41

B. The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶42

i) Whether Applicants made out any^{valid ground to quash} any of the measures initiated by the respondent^against the SA schedule^properties as^prayed for?

¶43

ii) To what relief?

¶44

Point No.(i):

¶45

During the course of^proceedings it^{was reportedthat the} auction scheduled on 05.07.2024^{pursuant to sale notice dated} 30.05.2024 was not^{successful due to want of bidders' Undersuch} circumstances, the^{contention of non-complianceof Rule 8(5), 8(6)} B(7) & 9(1) of the^{Rules pertainingto the impugnedauction needno} consideration and SA^{has become infructuous to that extent'}

¶46

It is the case of^{the Applicantsthat, being third parties, they} have been in^{possession and enjoyment of the S'A' Schedule} Propertiessincelg55,asreflectedintherevenuerecords/Dharani OW

¶47

Page 7 of 7

¶48

sANo.27912024

¶49

Portal. Aggrieved by the subsequent inclusion of the^{properties in the} prohibitory list, the Applicants approached the Hon'ble High Court, which directed them to approach the competent authority^for mutation of their names in the revenue records and Dharani Portal. However, the Applicants have not^placed on record any material^to establish that, pursuant to the said directions, their names^were actually mutated in the revenue records or Dharani^Portal. In^the absence of such evidence, the Applicants have^failed to establish^any subsisting right, title or interest in the S.A. Schedule^{Properties so as} to maintain the^{present proceedings} under Section¹⁷ of^the SARFAESI Act. Accordingly, this Tribunal finds no meritⁱⁿ the^S.A., and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶50

Point No.(ii):

¶51

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

¶52

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications^pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶53

No order as to costs.

¶54

t4. Communicate a copy of this order to the^{partiesconcernedand} upload in the official website.

¶55

(Typed to my dictotion by the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of August, 2026).

¶56

M'# (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Aenugu Lakhmamma and others v. Sicom Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aenugu Lakhmamma and others v. Sicom Limited

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Umiya Timber Trading.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Haneesh Babu Vuyyuru

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Sree Venkateswara Beauty Services.

Mohammed Faheemuddin versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Ramulu

Indusind Bank versus Sunand