Disposed

Cyrus Diagnostic Centre Rep by its Managing Partner v. PNB Housing Finance Limited

DRT24 Mar 2026SA/329/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed 1st Respondent Bank to dismiss applicant's application under S. 17 SARFAESI Act. Court held that since the mortgaged schedule property was released and the applicant had vacated it, the application became infructuous as no cause of action survived. The refund claim against Respondent No. 2 was dismissed due to lack of notice.

What did the court decide?

SA 329 of 2024 dismissed; Interlocutory Applications disposed of; No order as to costs.

Cyrus Diagnostic Centre Rep by its Managing Partner versus PNB… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH,2O26

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

SA.No.329./2c24

¶5

M/s Cyrus Diagnostic Centre, Rep. by its Managing partner Dr.Sreenivas Rao Dundigal S/o D.Narsing Rao, aged 58 years, R/o H.No.18-tO7 /t, Road No.5, Hanumanpet Medchal, Malkajgiri District.

¶6

.. . Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

PNB Housing Finance Ltd., BV Raju Bhavan, 4th floor,

¶9

8-2-269 lC&,D, Near Sagar Society,

¶10

Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

¶11

Rep. by its Authorized Officer

¶12

M I s Vishwashanti Enterprises Rep. by its Managing partner Sri K.Madhukar Rao, D/o K.Vishwanatham, aged 54 years, Rl o 16-6-687, Chaderghat, Hyderabad.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Counsel for tle Applicant M/s G.K. Lau.t
Counsel for the 7st Respondent S.ri Lanka Jagannadham
Counsel for Respondent No.2
t'.-:'1"' I
Reserued"on " : 27.01.2026
: 24.O3.3026
Pronounced..# ',,;l
Upload.ed oX f,::-J :24.03.2026
2 4 trlAH

¶15

M/s G.K. Lau.t Associates S.ri Lanka Jagannadham

¶16

This ap licant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, c tiated by the 1st Respondent for taking physical schedule property through Advocate

¶17

commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.XI ACMM, secunderabad in Crl.M.P.No.2014 124 in SR No.5763/24 and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶18

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶19

The Applicant is a Registered partnership firm involved in the business of clinical services of patholory and Laboratory medicine, radiolog, and Nuclear Medicine in the SA schedule property. The Applicant taken the schedule property on rent from the Respondent No.2 vide lease Deed dt.30.0f .2021 registered in the office of the SRO, Vallabhnagr as Doc.No.314/2O2 1 for a period of 9 years and the Applicant deposited an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs as refundable deposit. The Applicant is running diagnostic centre since the date of inception peacefully. While things stood thus, on OA.O7 .2024, one advocate commissioner appointed by the Hon'le XI ACMM, Sec.bad in Crl.M.p.No.2Ol4/24 visited the building and handed over a notice to vacate all the tenants including the Applicant herein. The Applicant has no knowledge of the bank loan or mortgage and no notice is received by the Applicant in respect of mortgage of the property. The 1st Respondent has no right to evict the Applicant without following the due process of law as stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence the SA.

¶20

¶21

The l"t Respondent Iiled their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in t.l.e SA and contended that 2.d Respondent created mortgage over the schedule properties by depositing original sale deed No.2Ol7 I 1983 with the 1st Respondent which includes the petition schedule property. The Respondent No.2 executed Regd. Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds on 02.05.2018. The alleged lease was created by ths !"4 Respondent in the year 2O2l i.e. after creation of mortgage, without of the 1"t Respondent. The 1"t Respondent took ph the schedule property ot 2O.O8.2O24 in of Crl.M.P.No.2Ol4 /24 through advocate t failed to comply the conditional stay flo&.SAf, 2flaE* jlrli 2d Respondent approached the l"t the said OTS was accepted by the lst

¶22

Respondent and the 2"d^{Respondenthonouredthe terms and paidthe} entire loan amount. Hence^{the loan accountof the 2"a Respondent was} closed and the mortgaged^{properties were released includingthe} schedule property herein.^{The Applicantis tenant of shops in the} ground floor of the schedule^{property. Accordingly,the l"t Respondent} prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶23

¶24

Heard Ld. Counsel for the^{Appticant and Ld. Counselfor the l"t} Respondent Bank whereas^{claim against RespondentNo.2 is dismissed} as no notice taken^{against him.}

¶25

Now the^points that^{arise for considerationare}

¶26

i. wlether the^{Applicant is lwuingloans-standito challengetle} proceedings initiated bg tte^{7"t RespondentBank underthe} prouisions o/ SARFAES/^{Act, 2002 in respect of the schedule}

¶27

propertg?

¶28

ii. To uhat relief^?

¶29

Point ilo.(il:-

¶30

During the course of^{arguments, Ld. Counselfor the Applicant and l,d.} counsel for the^{l"t Respondentreiteratedtheir respectiveversions as} stated supra.

¶31

Even as^per the^{version of the Applicant,he is neither a borrowernor a} mortgagor to the^{proceedingsinitiated by the l"t Respondentagainstthe} schedule^{property but he is only a lessee, as per the kase Deed} dt.30.01.2021, from^{the RespondentNo'2' Even accordingto the} contentions^{of the Applicant in the SA, it is clearthat the impugnedLease} Deeddt.30.0l.2o2lissubsequenttothecreationofmortgageinfavourof the the year 2018 in^{respect of the schedule property'} ons in respect^{of the schedule property} created in favour^{of the securedcreditor'} t Bank has already^{taken physicalpossession}

¶32

of the schedule property on 2O.O8.2O24 through advocate^commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.XI ACMM, Sec.bad, by duly following the procedure.

¶33

However, the lst Respondent in the^{course of arguments,submitted that} the 2"d Respondent approached the^{1st Respondentfor OTS and the 2"d} Respondent paid the entire OTS amount and^{accordingly'the mortgaged} properties including the schedule^property herein are^{released by the 1"t} Respondent and the l"t Respondent^{also handed over the movableslying} in the shops to the Applicant.^{In view of the same, there are no merits in} the SA.

¶34

So, the SA is liable to be dismissed^{as infructuousas no causeof action} survives since the schedule^{property is released by the 1"t Respondent and} the Petitioner already vacated the^{schedule property. Thispoint is answered} accordingly.

¶35

Potnt ltlo.(ii)t

¶36

In the result, S,A329124^{is dismissed as there are no merits.}

¶37

Consequently, the Interlocutory^{Applications, pendingif any, shall stand} disposed of. No order^{as to costs.}

¶38

Communicate a copy^{of this order to the partiesconcerned'}

¶39

(Dctated to the P.S trcrnsc.libed bA her, conected,^{sigrled and proftanncedbymeitu theopen@uft on this the} ddA of MdrcL 2026).

¶40

sd/-
' . ii.l.
(G. GOPICHAND)
,}<br>PR"ESIDING OFT'ICER
ri.{,F $}
.i .+
iH, 2 I ilAR 2020 I
no: -Ar{-.R.r{uAL: tlYtlaRAeAO.
.,ih,,*ffi
\orrnv't'fz/

Cyrus Diagnostic Centre Rep by its Managing Partner v. PNB Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cyrus Diagnostic Centre Rep by its Managing Partner v. PNB Housing Finance 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Venkateshwara Power Looms Industry

Canara Bank versus M/S. Rohith Trading Company

Srinath Kusuma versus Shriram Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sai Padmavathi Eco Bricks

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Sri. Varigati Satya Prakash

Canara Bank versus Sri. Dabbeta Rahul