SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(DRAT) 516

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava
Kallam Madhav Reddy – Appellant
Versus
NARSAREDDYGARI BAL REDDY – Respondent
957/2025



##PAGE1##

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA (CAMP-HYDERABAD)

(Misc .Appeal No.76 of 2025 )

IA/545/2025 MA/1/2025 (DRT-II Hyderabad)

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

CHAIRPERSON

Order No.08

26.12.2025

Kallam Madhav Reddy … Appellant

-Vs

Narsareddygari Bal Reddy & Another ….Respondents

Sri Abhay Singh

Learned Counsel for Appellant

Sri Nemani Srinivas

Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1

Sri G. Prabhakar Sharma along with Sri M.Narender Reddy

Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Heard both the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, Respondent No.1 and Sri M.

Narender Reddy for Respondent No.2 on behalf of Sri G. Prabhakar Sharma.

2. Instant appeal is preferred against the order and judgment dt.18.07.2025

passed by Ld. DRT-II, Hyderabad in M.A 01/2025 in I.A.1594/24 in SA 38/2017

between SBI Vs. Narasareddygari Balreddy & Another wherein the Ld. DRT

dismissed the MA 01/25 & I.A.1594/24 with a further direction to the Advocate

Commissioner to implement the order dt.02.12.2024 for taking over the

possession of the schedule property from the Appellant i.e. auction purchaser and

to hand over the same to the borrower.

3. This is an interesting case wherein the unsuccessful auction purchaser is

trying to enter into the litigation knowing fully well that the SA was already allowed

against him which order was not challenged by him but when the order was about

to be executed in compliance of Section 17(3)(b) of SARFAESI Act,2002, then, he is

challenging the same by moving the application.

##PAGE2##

4. As far as the facts of the matter are concerned, SA 38/2017 was filed before

the Ld. DRT-II, Hyderabad which was allowed on 09.07.2018 by passing the

following order:

“In the result, SA is allowed quashing the auction held on 20.10.2014 and possession

notice u/s 13(4) of Securitization Act dt.10.07.2014. Since the possession notice

dt.10.07.2014 and the auction held on 20.10.2014 are set aside, the 1st Respondent Bank

is directed to take back the possession of the SA schedule property from the 2nd

Respondent- auction purchaser and hand over the same to the Applicant within one month

from the date of this order.”

5. In SA proceedings, auction purchaser was impleaded as Respondent No.2

while State Bank of India was Respondent No.1. After decision of the SA, the

impugned order dt.09.07.2018 passed in SA 38/2017 was challenged by the Bank

before the DRAT but could not find favour from the DRAT and the Appeal

No.149/2018 was dismissed vide order and judgement dt.08.02.2019. The said

judgement of the Appellate Tribunal was challenged by the Bank by preferring Writ

Petition No.5898/2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana State at

Hyderabad and that too was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.03.2022. An

application for restoration of the writ petition was filed vide I.A.Nos.1/2023 &

2/2023 before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad by the State Bank

of India which too was dismissed on 08.09.2025. Accordingly, the judgement

passed by the Ld.DRT-II, Hyderabad in SA 38/2017 attains finality. It is admitted

position on record that auction purchaser was a party in the SA but did not

challenge the order of the SA. Thereafter, MA.137/2024 was filed by the

Securitization Applicant for implementation of the order dated 13.08.2024 which

was passed by the Ld.DRT-II in MA.175/2023. MA.175/2023 was filed by the

Securitization Applicant seeking direction to the Bank to re-deliver the possession

of the schedule property in compliance of the final order dated 09.07.2018 passed

in SA.No.38/2017. Ld. DRT vide order dt.13.08.2024 directed the Bank to hand over

the physical possession of the SA schedule property to the Securitization Applicant

within fifteen days from the date of the order. It appears that in MA 175/2023,

one counsel for the Bank appeared but no counter was filed. Thereafter, MA

137/2024 was filed by the Securitization Applicant seeking appointment of

advocate commissioner for execution of the order dt.13.08.2024 wherein vide

order dt.02.12.2024, Sri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top