191090001532020_5a9c41c2cc22eaa23f015e8539dad18a.pdf

Reportable/Non-Reportable
                                           
      
        Appeal No.38 of   2023 -DRAT-Kolkata
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT 
KOLKATA
 HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
               CHAIRPERSON
       Appeal  No. 38 of 2023
       (Arising out of S.A. No. 138 of 2018 in DRT-II,  Hyderabad) 
1.
Tata Capital Housing  Finance Ltd. Plot No. 3,4,5 & 6, Road No. 
3, Auto Plaza, Opp. Times of India, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500034. 
    .…Appellants
-Versus-
1. 
B. Sravan Kumar, R/o. H. No. 6-3-174/2, Prem Nagar, 
Khairthabad, Hyderabad – 500016. 
2.
V. Balraj R/o. H. No. 4-12-45/5, (old) Dwarkamani Nagar near 
Saibaba Temple Vanashalipuram Hyderabad 500070. 
3.
Mulugu Bhaskar, R/o. H. No. 12-21 Road No. 11 R.K. Puram
Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad-500035.
                              
                ….Respondents
Counsel for Appellants     
Mr. 
Rajiv 
Maity, 
Learned 
Counsel. 
Counsel for Respondents   
Mr. Nemani Srinivas
JUDGMENT                         
:   
   12th  November, 2025
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : 
Instant appeal has been preferred against a judgment 
and order dated 06.12.2019 passed by Learned DRT-2 
Hyderabad in S.A. No. 138 of 2018   whereby Learned DRT 
dismissed the Securitisation Application  with an observation 

2
      
  . Appeal No.38 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata  
that the measures initiated by the secured creditor shall be 
subject to the outcome of the Civil Suit initiated by the 
Securitisation Applicants.
2.
Feeling aggrieved by the observations, secured creditor 
preferred the Appeal.
3.
As far as facts of the matter are concerned,  S.A. No. 
138 of 2018 was filed by the Respondent No. 1, B. Sravan 
Kumar 
challenging 
the 
e-auction 
Sale 
Notice 
dated 
29.03.2018 issued by the Appellant herein Tata Capital 
Housing Finance Limited.  Respondent No. 1 claimed himself 
to be the actual owner of the property.  Respondent No. 3, 
Mulugu Bhaskar is the borrower of Appellant who mortgaged 
the property which is subject matter of the e-auction Notice 
dated 29.03.2018 issued on account of default of loan.  A 
challenge to the e-auction Notice was made on the ground 
that the Respondent No. 1 purchased the house property in 
1979.  
Thereafter availed loan facility from Standard 
Chartered Bank which became NPA.  Respondent No. 1 
namely B Sravan Kumar sought assistance from Respondent 
No. 2, V. Balraj who provided him financial assistance on 
execution of certain documents.  It is alleged that Rs.24 lacs 
was agreed to be paid to Respondent No. 1 by Respondent 
No. 2 on execution of General Power of Attorney which was 
duly executed.  On the basis of General Power of Attorney, 
house property was sold by Respondent No. 2 in favour of 
Respondent No. 3 on 27.02.2012.  When the Respondent 
No. 1 namely B. Sravan Kumar came to know about the 
same on 04.11.2017,  he filed a Civil Suit No. 736 of 2015.

3
      
  . Appeal No.38 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata  
4.
Respondent No. 3 obtained a financial assistance from 
the Appellant on 18.02.2012 for Rs.98,22,115/- by creation 
of equitable mortgage of the property suit.  The Respondent 
No. 1 was a witness in the sale deed executed by 
Respondent No. 2 in favour of Respondent No. 3.
5.
Loan of account of Respondent No. 3 became NPA and 
the Appellant proceeded under the Securitisation Act and e-
auction Sale Notice was issued which was challenged.  
Physical possession was also taken by the Appellant.  
Securitisation Application filed by the Respondent No. 1 was 
dismissed by the DRT with certain observations to the effect 
that any measures initiated by the secured creditor under 
the Securitisation Act shall be subject to outcome of the Civil 
Proceedings initiated by the Applicant.  
6.
 Appellant/ secured creditor challenged the impugned 
judgment so far as it relates to the observations made by 
the Learned DRT.
7.
I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and 
perused the records.  
8.
At the very outset, it is to b

…