Dismissed

B Shiva Kumar v. Icici Finance Company Ltd.

DRT8 Apr 2026SA/357/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This debtor recovery tribunal rejected an applicant's plea to quash a bank's recovery proceedings. The court held that since the applicant's title to the property was disputed via a registered sale deed, he lacked locus standi to challenge the recovery action under the SARFAESI Act without first obtaining a civil court declaration.

What did the court decide?

Applications under Sections 17 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are dismissed as the applicant lacks locus standi to challenge the title dispute.

B Shiva Kumar versus Icici Finance Company Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL^_ 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THISTHE 8lH DAYOF APRIL. 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

SA.No.357,/2025

Sri B. Shiva Kumar

S/o B.Pentaiah,

Aged 44 years, Occ: pvt.employee, R/o H.No.9- 1 -292 I 1, Haridaspura, Langer House, Hyderabad-SOO 008.

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

ICICI Finance company Ltd. Rep. by its Branch manager Branch office at:H.No.16-11-20 I 7 I A, 1st floor, Opp.TV Towers, Malakpet,

¶11

Hyderabad-500 036.

¶12

Sanka Sanjay Kumar,

¶13

S/o Krishna Mohan, aged 27 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No. 12-3- 18, 19,20, Kondapalli Vari Veedhi, Mandapeta, East Godavari, A.P. -533308.

¶14

Saddam Habibsab Qureshi, Aged 32 years, Occ:business, R/o Mahabub Nagar Narsi, Tq:Naigaon(Khai) District: Nanded, Narsi, Naigaon, Maharashtra-43t70g.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Counsel for the Applicant : Si K. Satg anaraA ana Respondents : ExparteExparte

¶17

: ExparteExparte

¶18

01.04.2026
R"t"-,qd;ffi
Pronqltnd or, ffi 08.04.2026
UIJ p tl oadd on 4S 08.04.2026
-e$
M6
{i ., . ".r,-1.I 0g APR
11
1. This Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act,
2002, initiated by the 1 st Respondent for

¶19

taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.VI ACJM, Nampally, Hyderabad in Cr1.M.P.No.680 125 and also to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶20

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

¶21

The Applicant is 3'd party to the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the 1"t Respondent. The Applicant is absolute owner and possessor of the SA schedule property having acquired the same through Regd. Gift Deed No.3129116 executed by his mother. The Applicant was in requirement of certain loan and in the said process, he got acquainted with the Respondent No.3 and believing the version of the Respondent No.3, the Applicant handed over all the property documents and transferred the schedule property in the name of Respondent No.3 to get loan, by way of Regd. Sale deed dt.22.I1.2O22. Respondent No.3 fraudulently transferred the said property in the name of Respondent No.2 by way of sale deed document No.295/23 and loan is availed from 1st Respondent in the name of Respondent No.2 and the loan proceeds were appropriated by the Respondents No.2&3. Respondent No.3 with the active connivance of the Bank officers of the Respondent No.1 and others, orchestrated the entire plan of sanctioning the loan on the basis of fake title deeds and other mandatory requirements. The Applicant is in actual and physical possession of the schedule property and the Respondent No.1 has no valid security to initiate SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶22

Notice served to the Respondents, no representation and set exparte.

¶23

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant.

¶24

¶25

se for consideration is is hauing locous-standi to challenge the bg the J", Respondent u/ s 14 of the

¶26

SARFAESI Act, 2002 for^{takingphgsicalpossessionof the} schedule propertg?

¶27

ii) To uhat relieJ?

¶28

Polnt No.ll)

¶29

The Applicant is contending that originally^{he is the absolute owner of} the schedule property and Respondent^{No.3 by playingfraud on the} Applicant, obtained sale deed in^{respect of the scheduleproperty.Even} as per the material documents^{filed by the Applicant,it is clear that} the Applicant executed^{Regd. Sale Deed No.73O3} 122^{dt.22.11.1022rn} favour of the Respondent^{No.3 in respectof the scheduleproperty'} Respondent No.3 in turn,^{executed Regd' Sale Deed No.295123 in} favour of Respondent^{No.2 and thereafter,Respondent No.2 availed} loan from the 1"t Respondent^{by creating mortgage in respect of the} schedule property.^{The Applicantis not disputing the fact that he} executed sale deed in^{favour of the Respondent No.3 in respectof the} schedule property. So^{for cancellation of the said sale deed, the} Applicant is expected to approach^{competentcivil courtby filing regular} civil suit against Respondent^{No.3 and he need to challenge the} subsequent sale transaction^{entered into by the Respondent N'3 with} the Respondent No.2^{in respect of the scheduleproperty'This Tribunal} is not competent to decide^{the allegedtitle of the Applicant in respect of} the schedule^{propertyand the Applicanthas to approach the competent} civil court. So without^{getting any declarationof the alleged title of the} Applicant in respect of the ule property, he cannot^{challenge the} proceedings initiated lent^{in respectof the schedule} property under th Act, 2OO2 and Rules^made #6 thereunder. t 0 0 ApR 7r0t Point No.lii):I 'ad,6,(n am of the opinion that^the So, considering Applicant is not enti as he has no locus-standi^to

¶30

¶31

challenge the proceedings initiated by the 1.t Respondent in respect of the schedule property under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2002 and Rules made thereunder. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the proceedings initiated by the l.t Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Accordingly, this^point is answered in favour of the 1st Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶32

In the result, SA 357/25 is dismissed as there are no merits.

¶33

Consequently, the Interiocutory^{Applications, pending if any, shall} stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶34

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

¶35

[Dictated^{to theP.S, transcibedbg her, corrected,signedandpronouncedbg me in the} open court on this the &tt' day of Ap ,²⁰²⁶⁾

¶36

(G. GOPI CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶37

6<br>iy E
osAPHm l
\r***f.tC'
:f i';llj \YV

¶38

B Shiva Kumar v. Icici Finance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Shiva Kumar v. Icici Finance Company Ltd.

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

Ujwal Agarwal versus Canara Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Raghavendra Guptha Enterprises

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Salasar Ispat Udyog

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M/S. Vedamsa Agro Products Pvt. Ltd.

Indira Poultry Farm versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Pushpa Projects