Remanded

Calvary Temple Foundation v. Alle Venkat Jayakumar Reddy and Others

DRAT22 Jul 2025REGULAR APPEAL/4/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal remanded two appeals concerning a secured assets securitization application set aside by the DRT, allowing additional evidence and directing a rehearing to ensure the auction purchaser had an opportunity to oppose the application. Relief

What did the court decide?

Both appeals remanded to the DRT for fresh hearing allowing additional evidence and opportunity for opposition by the auction purchaser.

Calvary Temple Foundation versus Alle Venkat Jayakumar Reddy… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

¶2

Reportable / not reportable

¶3

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - KOLKATA HON'BLE Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson

¶4

REGULAR APPEAL No. 04 of 2024 (Arising out of S.A. No. 200 of 2019 – DRT- II Hyderabad)

¶5

22.07.2025

¶6

CALVARY TEMPLE FOUNDATION having registered office at SY NO 77 Hafeezpet, Miyapur, HYDERABAD TELANGANA 500049

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

--Vs--

¶9

ALLE VENKAT JAYAKUMAR REDDY AND OTHERS having office at FLAT NO 503 AISWARYA RESIDENCY, SAFARI NAGAR KONDAPUR HYDERABAD

¶10

2.Alle Prabha Nagi Reddy residing at Flat No. 503, Aiswarya Residency, Safari Nagar, Kondapur, Hyderabad

¶11

3.State Bank of India residing at Stressed Assets Management Branch, 5th Floor, Rear Block, HMWSSB Compound, D. No. 6- 2-915, Khairtabad, Hyderabad

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Appeal No. 18 of 2024 (Arising out of S.A. 200 of 2019 DRT-II Hyderabad)

¶14

STATE BANK OF INDIA having registered office at State Bank of India SARB 2nd Floor RTC Bus Terminal Complex, Koti Hyderabad 500001

¶15

... Appellant

¶16

--Vs--

¶17

Alle Venkata Jayakumar Reddy having office at Flat No 503, Aiswaraya Residency Safari Nagar Kondapur Hyderabad

¶18

2.Alle Prabha Nagi Reddy residing at Flat No. 503, Aiswaraya Residency, Safari Nagar, Kondapur, Hyderabad

¶19

3.Calvary Temple Foundation at Sy 77, Clavary Temple Road, Hydernagar Hyderabad, Telangana

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

For Appellant : Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Ld. Adv.

¶22

For Respondent: Ms. Mekhla Kanji, ld. adv. for bank Mr. K. Samuel, ld. adv.

¶23

¶24

The Appellate Tribunal

¶25

Both the appeals No. 04 of 2024 and 18 of 2024 are

¶26

preferred against the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by learned DRT-II Hyderabad allowing the S.A. 200 of 2019 filed by the respondents herein. Hence both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order.

¶27

Securitization application u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002

¶28

was filed by Alle Venkata Jayakumar Reddy and Alle Prabha Nagi Reddy, who are respondents in appeal. Securitization application

¶29

was filed against the State Bank of India, secured creditor, and Calvary Temple Foundation, auction purchaser, were appellant in appeal.

¶30

As per pleadings of the parties, securitization application filed by the respondents herein before the learned DRT challenging E-auction sale conducted on 10.06.2019 which was published on 08.05.2019. Initially the securitization application u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was filed against the State Bank of India wherein it is submitted that respondents are the borrower of the bank, who availed the loan. Loan repayment became irregular and was classified as NPA. Demand notice u/s

¶31

¶32

13(2) of the Act was issued on 15.05.2014. Possession notice dated 13.02.2015 was duly served, published and affixed. Valuation report was also obtained. Thereafter, E-auction sale notice dated 04.05.2019 was issued fixing the sale date 10.06.2019 and the sale notice was published on 08.05.2019. Auction was conducted successfully in favour of the Auction Purchaser appellant in Appeal No. 04 of 2024 namely M/s Calvary Temple Foundation, who deposited entire sale consideration. Sale certificate was registered on 14.06.2019.

¶33

It appears that initially securitization application was filed

¶34

against the State Bank of India. Subsequent thereto after conclusion of auction sale an application for amendment was moved by the appellant wherein amendment was sought in the pleadings only without any prayer for impleadment of the auction purchaser, but in the securitization application auction purchaser was impleaded and proceedings were conducted before the learned DRT. Auction purchaser did not appear before the learned DRT. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the auction purchaser that no notice was issued upon the auction

¶35

purchaser. Further it is submitted that the issue is kept open. Thereafter, learned DRT dispose of the securitization application

¶36

¶37

by allowing the same and setting aside the auction conducted in

¶38

favour of the auction purchaser, respondent no.2 before the learned DRT.

¶39

Feeling aggrieved by the judgement and order passed by the learned DRT, State Bank of India as well as auction purchaser have preferred both the appeal.

¶40

Pending appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is filed by the State Bank of India with the prayer for filing additional evidence which relates to the settlement arrived at between the borrower and the bank and correspondences thereon. Objection to the application for filing additional evidence is not filed. Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the bank that despite due diligence documents could not be filed before the learned DRT. I.A. 372 of 2025 is allowed. Additional evidence is taken on record.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶42

There are certain circumstances which requires the matter

¶43

should be re-heard by the learned DRT. Learned counsel for auction purchaser submits that they have not given any

¶44

¶45

opportunity either to file opposition to the securitization application or to submit their submissions. They have not been

¶46

impleaded as respondent in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the bank submits that application for filing additional evidences has been allowed by the Appellate Tribunal which evidence is required to be examined by the learned DRT. Learned counsel for the borrower submits that liberty may be granted to them for rebuttal. Having considered the submissions, I am of the considered opinion that learned DRT should re-

¶47

examine the matter. Accordingly, both the appeals are liable to be remanded to the learned DRT for hearing afresh in according

¶48

with law.

¶49

9. Appeal No. 04 of 2024 and 18 of 2024 are disposed of and

¶50

matter is remanded back to learned DRT to decide afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the parties for filing rebuttal as far as additional evidence is concerned. Auction purchaser would be at liberty to file opposition before the learned

¶51

DRT. Since it is old matter, it is expected that learned DRT

¶52

should disposed of the matter preferably within four months from

¶53

the date of the copy of this order placed before the learned DRT.

¶54

¶55

Copy of this order be placed in the file of Appeal No. 18 of 2024.

¶56

File be consigned to record room. Copy of the Order be

¶57

uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

¶58

Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open

¶59

Court on this the 22nd day of July, 2025.

¶60

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

¶61

Dated : 22.07.2025 /pkb

Calvary Temple Foundation v. Alle Venkat Jayakumar Reddy and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Calvary Temple Foundation v. Alle Venkat Jayakumar Reddy and Others

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

Canara Bank versus M/s Sree Vijayasri Lakshmi Traders

Hdfc Bank versus Maa Kalika Tiles and Ors.

Raju Majumder versus Punjab National Bank

Ms Tbpr Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Alle Venkata Jayakumar Reddy

Sk Shadaab Shahid versus Vikash Jiaswal