Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt Valluru Ganga Bhavani

DRAT3 Jul 2023REGULAR APPEAL/46/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an appeal by State Bank of India and remanded the matter to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing, in light of the plea regarding valuation under Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 09.10.2020 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the DRT to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing.

State Bank of India versus Smt Valluru Ganga Bhavani — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Appeal No. 46 of 2023 (Arising out of SA No. 434 of 2019 in DRT Visakhapatnam)

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶4

03.07.2023	State Bank of India (SARB – Visakhapatnam) ... Appellant -Vs- Smt. Vallure Ganga Bhavani ... Respondent
	Mr. Soudip Pal Choudhuri with Ms. Saswati Sikder, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
	Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Learned Counsel for Respondent

¶5

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶6

Instant appeal has arisen against an order dated 9^th October, 2020 passed by Ld. DRT Visakhapatnam allowing the SARFAESI Application No. 434 of 2019 whereby sale Certificate issued on 05.03.2020 in favour of auction purchaser was set aside.

¶7

As far as facts are concerned, admittedly Respondent No. 1 namely Smt. Valluru Ganga Bhavani was guarantor to the loan availed by the borrower which was classified as NPA. SARFAESI proceedings were initiated by the Bank after following due procedure under the SARFAESI Act. Auction was held on 26.02.2020 and the secured asset was auctioned in favour of one Sri Chitturi Rama Rao. Sale was confirmed and sale certificate was issued.

¶8

¶9

Feeling aggrieved Respondent No. 1 filed the SARFAESI Application. Apart from other grounds a ground is taken regarding violation of Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules. It is alleged that the property was sold for less value and a plea of under value was taken which was accepted by the Ld. DRT holding that the valuation report was not filed by the Bank. Accordingly, it was held that a proper procedure as prescribed under Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules was not followed. Accordingly, SARFAESI Application was allowed.

¶10

Ld. Counsel for the Appellant Bank submits that the procedure established under the law was followed by the Bank. Valuation report was obtained which was also argued before the Ld. DRT. But the valuation Report could not be filed before the Ld. DRT.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that Bank was under an obligation to file the valuation report and the Ld. DRT has rightly held that there was a violation of Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules.

¶12

Having gone through the record, I found that the plea of under valuation taken by the SARFAESI Applicant which was duly considered by the Ld. DRT. However, it was held that there was a violation of Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules. It was submitted by the Ld. DRT that proper valuation Report was obtained which was not filed. Learned Counsel for the Appellant Bank submits that since the Bank had already obtained the valuation

¶13

¶14

Report, it can be filed now. Hence, opportunity may be given to him for adjudication of the matter afresh in accordance with law.

¶15

I find force in the submission. Accordingly, I am of the view that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. DRT to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Appeal is allowed. Order dated 09.10.2020 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the DRT to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Rest of the findings of the Ld. DRT have not been challenged in the memo of Appeal. Hence, no finding is being recorded on those issues.

¶18

No Order as to costs.

¶19

File be consigned to Record Room.

¶20

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶21

Copy of the Judgment/ Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.

¶22

Order signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3^rd day of July, 2023.

¶23

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶24

Dated 3^rd July, 2023 07/tp

State Bank of India v. Smt Valluru Ganga Bhavani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt Valluru Ganga Bhavani

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chhutu Sharma versus Union Bank of India

Sree Sreevasa Godowns versus City Union Bank Limited

Ms Sanjay Re Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. versus Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd.

Sri Dharani Enterprises versus Icici Bank Limited

Uco Bank versus State Bank of India

Kh Brojomohan Singha versus Punjab National Bank