Allowed

Smt Daggupati Suneetha v. Authorised Officer Punjab National Bank

DRAT14 Jul 2025REGULAR APPEAL/101/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed appeals in debt recovery proceedings where the Auction Purchaser and Bank challenged a DRT order allowing a Securitization Application. The Tribunal found that the Bank and Purchaser failed to file crucial additional evidence before the lower court. Consequently, the Borrower was deprived of an opportunity to rebut. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the DRT for a fresh hear

What did the court decide?

Both appeals allowed. Matters remanded to DRT, Visakhapatnam to decide SARFAESI applications afresh after affording an opportunity of rebuttal to the Borrower. Securitization Application to be dispose

Smt Daggupati Suneetha versus Authorised Officer Punjab… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Appeal No. 101 of 2024 & Appeal No. 45 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶3

Appeal No. 101 of 2024

¶4

(Arising out of S.A. 102 of 2020 in DRT, Visakhapatnam)

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶6

Smt. Daggupati Suneetha, residing at Plot No.7, Pioneer Cooperative Society, Swavalambi Nagar, Nagpur - 440 025.

¶7

… Appellant

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, having office at D No.9-35, Kavuri Towers, First Floor, Kamya Topu Centre, Kanuru, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh - 520 007;

¶10

Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, 4^th Lane, Old PichikalaGunta, Arundelet, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh - 522 002;

¶11

Sri Korrakuti Venkata Saketh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Saketh Enterprises, resident of Chatukudapadu, Janardhanapuram, Zarugumalli, Prakasam District.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Counsel for the Appellants

¶14

Counsel for the Appellants … Mr. Debasish Karmakar Mr. Satyam Ojha Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2 … Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti Mr. Snehasish Chakrabarti Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 … Mr. Nemani Srinivas

¶15

With

¶16

Appeal No. 45 of 2025

¶17

(Arising out of S.A. 102 of 2020 in DRT, Visakhapatnam)

¶18

Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, having office at D No.9-35, Kavuri Towers, First Floor, Kamya Topu Centre, Kanuru, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh - 520 007;

¶19

Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, 4^th Lane, Old PichikalaGunta, Arundelet, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh - 522 002.

¶20

… Appellants

¶21

-Versus-

¶22

Sri Korrakuti Venkata Saketh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Saketh Enterprises, resident of Chatukudapadu, Janardhanapuram, Zarugumalli, Prakasam District;

¶23

¶24

Appeal No. 101 of 2024 & Appeal No. 45 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata

¶25

1. Smt. Daggupati Suneetha, residing at Plot No.7, Pioneer Cooperative Society, Swavalambi Nagar, Nagpur - 440 025.

¶26

... Respondents

¶27

Counsel for the Appellant	…	Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti Mr. Snehasish Chakrabarti
Counsel for Respondent 1	…	Mr. Nemani Srinivas
Respondent 2	…	Mr. Debasish Karmakar Mr. Satyam Ojha
JUDGMENT	:	14^thJuly, 2025

¶28

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶29

1. Both these appeals have arisen against one common judgment dated 3^rd August, 2024 passed by Learned DRT, Visakhapatnam allowing S.A. 102 of 2020 (Sri Korrakuti Venkata Saketh Kumar -vs- Punjab National Bank); hence they are being disposed of by a single judgment. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, Auction Purchaser preferred Appeal No. 101 of 2024 while the Bank preferred Appeal No. 45 of 2025. 3. As would appear from the pleadings of the parties, it is not in dispute that Borrower obtained financial assistance from the Bank which was not repaid in time and accordingly the account was classified as N.P.A. Notices under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 were issued, served and published in accordance with law. Thereafter, Auction Sale Notice was issued on 23.01.2020 fixing e-Auction date on 17.2.2020 which was published on 24.1.2020. It is alleged that the Demand Notice was not served upon the Borrower. No Possession Notice was also served. No opportunity of redemption was granted.

¶30

¶31

Appeal No. 101 of 2024 & Appeal No. 45 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata Mortgage was also not registered with the central registry. Sale Notice did not contain complete details. Accordingly, action of the Bank was challenged by the Securitization Applicant.

¶32

4. Bank filed opposition stating that all the procedures were followed in accordance with law. Notices were duly served and published. Auction Purchaser also appeared and adopted the same plea taken by the Bank. However, Learned DRT recorded a finding that specific order dated 27.4.2023, relevant documents have not been filed by the Bank, accordingly, allowed the Securitization Application. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, Auction Purchaser as well as the Bank preferred the appeal.

¶33

5. Pending appeal, additional evidence is filed by the Bank as well as the Auction Purchaser which was taken on record. 6. Perusal of the additional evidence filed by the Appellants reveals that all these documents should have been brought on record by the secured creditor as well as the Auction Purchaser before the Learned DRT which was not done. Accordingly, the Borrower was not getting any opportunity to rebut the same. An opportunity of rebuttal is to be granted to the Borrower also. Accordingly, when the additional evidence is taken on record, I find it appropriate that the matter be remanded to Learned DRT to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Borrower as well as the Bank and the Auction Purchaser. Accordingly appeals are liable to be allowed.

¶34

¶35

Appeal No. 101 of 2024 & Appeal No. 45 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

Both the appeals, being Appeal No. 101 of 2024 and Appeal No. 45 of 2025, are allowed. The matters are remanded to DRT, Visakhapatnam for deciding the SARFAESI Applications afresh after giving an opportunity of rebuttal to the Borrower. Thereafter Learned DRT shall dispose of the Securitization Application after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law.

¶38

All the interim orders stand vacated.

¶39

File be consigned to Record room.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

Copy of the judgment and order be retained in the records of Appeal No. 45 of 2025.

¶43

Order pronounced in the open Court.

¶44

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶45

Dated: 14^th July, 2025 11 & 14/ac

¶46

¶47

Appeal No. 101 of 2024 & Appeal No. 45 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata

Smt Daggupati Suneetha v. Authorised Officer Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Daggupati Suneetha v. Authorised Officer Punjab National Bank

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

Rich Engineers and Developers through Rohan Pinayak Mohanty versus Punjab National Bank

Rich Engineers and Developers through Rohan Pinayak Mohanty versus Punjab National Bank

Yanamandra Vijaya Lakshmi versus Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Sri Korrakuti Venkata Saketh Kumar

Smt Rutuparna Dhirsamant versus Uco Bank

Rashmi Ranjan Das versus State Bank of India