Dismissed

Ms Vr Associates v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT13 Apr 2026SA/79/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal considered a Securitisation Application challenging the Bank's possession of mortgaged property. The Tribunal held the section 17 scope is limited to verifying if possession steps under section 13(4) comply with the Act, not to adjudicate underlying title or payment disputes, and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Ms Vr Associates versus Bank of Maharashtra — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

. INTHEDEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I ATHYDERABAD DATEDTHISTHE 13TH DAYOFAPRIL, 2c.26

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER sA.No.7g 0F 2024

¶3

M/s. V. R. Associates, Represented by Proprietor, Mannava Venkata Buchi Raju, S/o Late M. Late M R K Murthy, Aged 56 years, occ: business, Oflice at H.No.1-60/30 1291L36, Dilari's Smith Arcade, 1"t floor, Rolling Hills, Near Anjaiah nagar, Opp Jayabheri enclave, Gachibowli Main Road, Kothaguda post, Hyderabad, TS - 500 0S2.

¶4

Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

I . Bank of Maharashtra, Represented by Branch Manager, Office at shop no.4, Ashish Orchids, Near Shanthi Theatre, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad - 5O0 029.

¶7

Bala Krishna Gogeneni, s/o Nageshwara Rao Gogeneni, aged 46 years, occ: business, villa no.76, Prime Meadows, Kasani Kousalya colony, Road no. 1, Bachpalle,

¶8

Quthbullapur, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant Coutsel for Respondent No.l Respond.ent No.2

¶10

{b=",\ d * lSlpR20zr * cl = W*# Mr. Momin Mohammed Rafiq. Ex-parte.

¶11

Reserued on 29.01.2026 Pronounced on 13.04.2026 Uploaded to Website on 15.04.2026

¶12

(SA.No.79l2024)

¶13

-:ORDERi

¶14

The applicant frled the present Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (for short^.SARFAESI' Act) challenging the steps initiated by the l"t Respondent Bank for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner eviction notice dated 23.O2.2024.

¶15

The averments made in the application in brief are that the Applicant herein is Iirst charge holder cum builder cum unpaid seller of schedule property pursuant to execution of sale deed doc.No. IZ l2Ol9 dated 23.02.2019 registered at SRO Serlingampally & MOU dated 27.2.2019 between applicant and Respondent No.2. The Applicant entered into Development Agreement-cum-GPA bearing Doc No.4. 11.2013, with landlord to develop the land as described in the schedule. On 27.O2.2O19, the Respondentno.2 executed a MOU to complete the semiIinished flat and hand over the physical possession to Respondent no.2 and by that time the Respondent no.2 has to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,13,75,000/ -. The Respondent No.2 has not paid the balance sale consideration to the Applicant and that apart Respondent No.2 has to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages and

¶16

inciden t is the first charge holder and the lst roceeding against the schedule property 13 tioln wa

¶17

(SA.No.7912024)

¶18

. under the SARFAESI Act by getting appointed Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the property. Hence the SA.

¶19

The l"t Respondent Bank liled its Reply Statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the application and contended that the Applicant is a third party and he filed the present application challenging the action of l"t Respondent initiated under section 14 of SARFAESI Act. It is denied that the Applicant is a charge holder cum builder cum unpaid seller of schedule property pursuant to execution of Sale Deed bearing Doc.No. 1713/2O19 dated 23.O2.2OL9 registered before SRO, Serilingampally and MOU dated 27.02.2019. The MOU dated 27.02.2019 is unregistered document and it is not valid in the eye of law. The Applicant and Respondent no.2 prepared the said MOU with a colluded manner to cheat Respondent no.1 bank. The Applicant herein, after receiving entire sale consideration, had executed Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.l313/2019 dated 23.O2.2O19 registered before SRO Serilingampaly. The Respondent no.2 availed loan by mortgage of schedule property from Respondent no. 1 bank by executing MODT No.L3l6l2O2O dated 14.O2.2O2O. When the account became NPA the Respondent No. 1 liled OA.No.l8Ol2024, which was allowed on O}.LO.2024. The Applicant is not entitled to claim any relief and the SA

¶20

is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

1. The Heard 2"d Respondentthe argumen @&\

¶22

Heard 2"d Respondentthe argumenthe argumen
B lt11pnrn *
d-- 7
eaffi,#

¶23

(SA.No.79l2024)

¶24

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:-

¶25

Whether the Applicant has established any valid grounds for setting-aside the steps initiated by the ls Respondent Bank for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner?

¶26

ii) To What Relief.)

¶27

Polnt No.(l)r

¶28

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsels on both sides reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶29

Admittedly, the Applicant is neither the borrower nor the mortgagor to the loan transaction with the lst Respondent Bank. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the 2"d Respondent availed loan from the l"t Respondent Bank by mortgaging the application schedule property in favour of the 1"t Respondent Bank. As the 2"d Respondent committed default in the repayment of the loan amount, the lst Respondent Bank had classified the loan account as NpA and initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act against the application schedule property, being secured asset. The Applicant is claiming that, 2"a Respondent is liable to pay balance sale consideration to him and so, he is alleged MOU is un-registered document. i;1";;&" has any claim from the 2"d Respondent, forum but not this Tribunal. The scope

¶30

Q**9

¶31

(sA.No.79l2024)

¶32

and ambit of this Tribunal u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act is very limited. This Tribunal, u/s. l7(3) of the SARFAESI Act, has to only examine whether the measures taken out by the secured creditor u/s. l3(4) are in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act or not. This Tribunal cannot traverse beyond Sec.l7(3) of the SARFAESI Act and decide the issues raised by the Applicant. Under such circumstance, I hold that, there are no merits in the application and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this point is answered against the Applicant.

¶33

Polnt No.lillt

¶34

In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concemed.

¶36

(Ddated. to the PA' ttdisqibed. bV te4 @ftected., sbtAd dnd. pronounrd bA fiE in tlle opeft ca$l on this the 1? da| ofApnL 2026)

¶37

sdl-

¶38

(G. GOPICHAND)

¶39

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶40

dl
,fr"
rRyE c9ry
1 3 APB zUD ^
ve:w,'
DRI.I, HYDERADAD.
Q,hr*ro$,

¶41

Ms Vr Associates v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Vr Associates 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

Mr.Venugopal Reddy Gaddam and another versus South Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Srinivas Reddy Daama

State Bank of India versus Mr. Tera Karunakar Reddy

Canara Bank versus Sri. Ramavath Praharsh Mark

Canara Bank versus Agapu Ramaswamy

Madhamshetty Hari Babu versus Union Bank of India