IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI Dated the 24^thday of July, 2025 PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON MA 21/2017 (Arising out of AOR 8/2010 on the file of DRT, Karnataka)

Between Sri H. Amarnath Son of Sri M.A. Hanumantha Sa, R/o No.331/29 (Old No.331), 8^th ‘A’ Main Road, “A” Block, 2^nd Stage, Milk Colony, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore 560 010.

…..Appellant And

1. Kotak Mahindra Bank, No.487, 1^st Floor, 9^th Main Road, 4^th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 011.

2. M/s Hiteck Profile Formers Pvt. Ltd.

No.2, Sangeetha Apartments, 4^th Main Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore 560 003.

3. Sri S. Ramji, S/o Swaminathan

4. Smt. Geetha Ramji, Wife of Sri S. Ramji

5. Ms. Kritika Ramji D/o Sri S. Ramji

6. Ms. Deepika Ramji D/o Sri. S. Ramji Respondents 3 to 6 are at:

No.49/3, 2^nd Floor, 16^th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore 560 003.

…..Respondents Counsel for Appellant : M/s S.R. Rajagopal & Co.

Counsel for R1 Bank : M/s Ramalingam & Associates Counsel for R2 : None Counsel for R3 to R6 : Mr. S. Sashikumar

ORDER

1. This Appeal is filed under Section 20 of RDB Act, challenging theorder of Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore dated 20.2.2014 passed in AORNo.8/2010.

2. The first respondent bank is the assignee of State Bank of India. State Bank of India filed a suit in OS No.1815/1994 on the file of the Additional City Civil Court at Bangalore against 1) M/s Hitek Profile Formers Pvt. Limited 2) S. Ramji 3) Smt. Geetha Ramji and 4) Prakash Swaminathan, Director of M/s Hitek Profile Formers Pvt. Ltd for recovery of a sum of Rs.29,60,039.43p along with interest and costs. State Bank of India advanced two loan facilities viz., a) Cash Credit (Hypothecation) to the tune of Rs.24.00 lakhs and b) Cash Credit (Bills) to the tune of Rs.25.00 lakhs, totalling to Rs.49.00 lakhs to the first defendant therein. On failure to pay the loan due, the aforesaid suit was filed.

3. Later, the suit was transferred to DRT, Bangalore and re-numbered as OA No.730/1995 for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The aforesaid OA was allowed on 30.7.1999 issuing a Recovery Certificate on 17.10.2000. Learned Recovery Officer issued a Proclamation of Sale in DCP No.1300 on 15.3.2010. Challenging the proclamation of sale, appellant filed objections before the Learned Recovery Officer, claiming that he is the owner of the schedule mentioned property on purchase from Ms. Krithika Ramji and Ms. Deepika Ramji, represented by their mother, Smt. Geetha Ramji through a Sale Deed dated 25.4.2005. The said objections were dismissed by the Learned Recovery Officer on 9.6.2010. Against the dismissal order, appellant filed the aforesaid Appeal i.e. AOR No.8/2010 and that was also dismissed by Learned Presiding Officer on 20.2.2014. Therefore, this appeal is filed.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is a third party purchaser from respondent Nos. 5 and 6. In the Suit filed in OS No.1815/1994, the property purchased by the appellant was not shown as property in the schedule. This property was never attached when Suit in OS No.1815/1994 and OA No.730/1995 were pending. After the disposal of OA No.730/1995 on 30.7.1999, the third respondent viz., Shri S. Ramji gifted this property to his daughters viz. respondents 5 and 6. On 18.1.2003, there had been a partition effected between respondents 5 and 6. On 25.4.2005, respondents 5 and 6 represented by their mother, sold the property to the appellant. Appellant verified the encumbrance, if any, on the property prior to the sale. Encumbrance Certificate did not reflect any encumbrance with the regard to the property purchased by the appellant. Till date, encumbrance certificate does not reflect any attachment on the subject property in any Court proceedings. Attachment was not properly effected by following proper procedure and attachment order was not communicated to the concerned Sub-Registrar Office by the Learned Recovery Officer. Appellant had purchased his property only after verifying the title a