Allowed

State Bank Of India v. Singirikonda Anjaiah

DRAT25 Apr 2025REGULAR APPEAL/33/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an Interim Application to admit additional documents filed by the appellant bank due to merger-related circumstances. The Tribunal allowed the instant appeal and remanded the matter to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide afresh after considering these documents and allowing respondents a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; matter remanded to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide afresh after considering additional documents and affording a hearing opportunity to the respondents.

State Bank Of India versus Singirikonda Anjaiah — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

¶2

Reportable / not reportable

¶3

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - KOLKATA

¶4

HON'BLE Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson

¶5

REGULAR APPEAL No. 33 of 2024

¶6

(Arising out of S.A. No. 208 of 2017 – DRT-I Hyderabad)

¶7

25.04.2025

¶8

State Bank of India having registered office at SARB-II, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, 500020.

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

--Vs--

¶11

Singirikonda Anjaiah

¶12

2.Shri Singirikonda Krishnaiah

¶13

3.Singirikonda Satyavathi

¶14

4.Sri Singirikonda Srinivas

¶15

Address 1 to 4 at H.No.1-5-41/1G, Old Maruthi Nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad – 500035.

¶16

5.Tirumala Real Estates, at Plot No.126, Vasavi Colony, Hayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶17

6.Swagath Real Estates, at Plot No.126, Vasavi Colony, Hayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

For Appellant : Mr. Mekhala Kanji, Ld. Adv.

¶20

For Respondent:Mr. Nemani Srinivas, ld. adv.

¶21

The Appellate Tribunal

¶22

I.A. 231 of 2025 is filed u/s Order 41 Rule 17 CPC today by

¶23

the appellant bank for bringing additional documents on record

¶24

which could not be filed earlier. Application is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

¶26

aforesaid documents could not be filed earlier since State Bank of

¶27

¶28

Hyderabad was merged with State Bank of India in the year

¶29

Thereafter documents were mixed-up on merger and could not be filed. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that appellant bank has full knowledge of the documents which should have been filed before the DRT.

¶30

Having heard the submissions of the parties, I find the grounds to be sufficient for filing the documents in appeal. Accordingly, I.A. 231 of 2025 is allowed. Documents filed are taken up on record.

¶31

Instant appeal No. 33 of 2024 is filed against the judgement

¶32

and order dated 30.08.2019 passed by learned DRT-I Hyderabad

¶33

allowing the S.A. 208 of 2017

¶34

As far as facts of the matter are concerned, the respondents

¶35

herein are the borrowers of the appellant bank who availed credit facilities. The loan account became irregular and account classified as NPA. Notices u/s 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Act) were issued and were duly served. Secured assets were also auctioned vide sale notice

¶36

dated 09.02.2017 and auction was conducted on 17.03.2017. All

¶37

the actions of the bank were challenged by the borrowers by filing

¶38

¶39

an application u/s 17 of the Act on the ground of non-compliance

¶40

of the procedures and provisions of the Act. Learned DRT after

¶41

hearing learned counsel for the parties allowed the S.A. on the ground that secured creditor failed to file any document to prove compliance of Rule 8(5), 8(7) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Accordingly, all the actions initiated by the bank were set aside.

¶42

Pending appeal, documents are filed by the appellant bank

¶43

which are taken on record. Learned counsel for the appellant bank would submit that the documents submitted in appeal will

¶44

prove due compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act. However, learned counsel for the respondent challenged the same and submits that opportunity of hearing and rebuttal on

¶45

filing of documents may be provided to him. It is further submitted that there are patent illegalities committed by the secured creditor.

¶46

Since additional documents filed today goes to the root of

¶47

the matter, the matter should have to be taken up by the learned

¶48

DRT. I find it appropriate that the matter be remanded back to

¶49

the DRT to decide afresh after taking into consideration the

¶50

¶51

additional documents filed in appeal. Accordingly, appeal

¶52

deserves to be allowed.

¶53

O R D E R

¶54

Appeal is allowed. Matter is remanded back to learned DRT

¶55

to decide afresh after considering the additional documents filed

¶56

by the appellant bank in appeal. Learned DRT should give opportunity to the respondents in appeal to file any documents on rebuttal. Learned DRT should decide the securitization application after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all the points raised in the S.A. in accordance

¶57

with law. Parties are directed to appear before learned DRT on

¶58

10.06.2025. Costs easy.

¶59

File be consigned to record room.

¶60

Copy of the order be supplied to the appellant and the respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT. Copy of the judgement/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

¶61

Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open

¶62

Court on this the 25^th day of April, 2024.

¶63

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

¶64

Dated : 25.04.2025 18/pkb

State Bank Of India v. Singirikonda Anjaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank Of India v. Singirikonda Anjaiah

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

Hdfc Bank versus M S North East Glass Industries

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited versus Instruments Techniques Private Limited

Baddila Chandrasekhar and Another versus Union Bank of India

Sri Mukul Sarkar versus Punjab National Bank

Ncdex e Markets Limited versus Canara Bank

Ramakrushna Sahoo versus Bank of India