Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Venu Akula

DRAT18 Nov 2025REGULAR APPEAL/39/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed appeals by the bank and auction purchaser, setting aside a lower court order that quashed a property auction. The Tribunal held the challenge was time-barred and found the mortgaged open land was indivisible, rendering the lower court's finding of divisibility illegal.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the Debts Recovery Tribunal's judgment dated 11th March, 2025; dismissed the borrowers' Securitization Applications.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Venu Akula — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

Judgment reserved on:13.11.2025 Judgment delivered on 18.11.2025

¶3

Appeals No. 39, 40, 51 and 52 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶5

HON’BLEMR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶6

Appeal No. 39 of 2025

¶7

(Arising out of S.A. 394 of 2023 in DRT-II, Hyderabad)

¶8

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, a banking company within the meaning of Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), having its office at 3^rd Floor, Jewel Pawani Towers, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500082.

¶9

…Appellant

¶10

-Versus-

¶11

Venu Akula, residing at Flat No. 618, Sundaram Building, Rama Raja Nagar, Suchitra, Ranga Reddy District – 500067;

¶12

Tunki Narender Rao, residing at H. No. 5-64, Adarsh Nagar, Lingampally, Serlingamaplly, Hyderabad, Telangana;

¶13

Tunki Raghavender Rao, residing at H. No. 5-64, Adarsh Nagar, Lingampally, Serlingamaplly, Hyderabad, Telangana;

¶14

Prathima Akula, residing at Plot No. 107, Sundaram Building, Rama Raja Nagar, Near Spencer, Super Market, Suchitra Circle, Quthubullapur, Ranga Reddy, District – 500055;

¶15

M/s Sri Ven Marketing,represented by Partner Venu Akula, Sy. No. 692 & 693, Part - 1, Devarayamzal, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana – 500019;

¶16

K Rohit Reddy residing at Villa No. 160, Palm Meadows, Kompally, Hyderabad – 500014.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Counsel for the Appellants … Mr. Tanish Ganeriwala Ms. Khushi Khaitan Ms. Namrata Chowdhury Counsel for Respondent No. 5 … Mr. Debasish Karmakar Mr. Rabindra Kumar Mitra Mr. Tamoghna Shah

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 … Mr. Nemani Srinivas

¶20

¶21

Appeals No. 39, 40, 51 and 52 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata

¶22

With

¶23

Appeal No. 40 of 2025

¶24

(Arising out of S.A. 395 of 2023 in DRT-II, Hyderabad)

… Appellant

-Versus-

Venu Akula, residing at Flat No. 618, Sundaram Building, Rama Raja Nagar, Suchitra, Ranga Reddy District – 500067;

¶29

Tunki Narender Rao, residing at H. No. 5-64, Adarsh Nagar, Lingampally, Serlingamaplly, Hyderabad, Telangana;

¶30

Tunki Raghavender Rao, residing at H. No. 5-64, Adarsh Nagar, Lingampally, Serlingamaplly, Hyderabad, Telangana;

¶31

Prathima Akula, residing at Plot No. 107, Sundaram Building, Rama Raja Nagar, Near Spencer, Super Market, Suchitra Circle, Quthubullapur, Ranga Reddy, District – 500055;

¶32

Venagro, represented by Partner Venu Akula, Sy. No. 692 &693, Part - 1, Devarayamzal, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana – 500019;

¶33

K Rohit Reddy residing at Villa No. 160, Palm Meadows, Kompally, Hyderabad – 500014.

¶34

... Respondents

¶35

Counsel for the Appellants

¶36

… Mr. Tanish Ganeriwala Ms. Khushi Khaitan Ms. Namrata Chowdhury

¶37

Counsel for Respondent No. 5 … Mr. Debasish Karmakar Mr. Rabindra Kumar Mitra Mr. Tamoghna Shah

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 … Mr. Nemani Srinivas

¶39

With

¶40

Appeal No. 51 of 2025

¶41

(Arising out of S.A. 395 of 2023 in DRT-II, Hyderabad)

¶42

K. Rohit Reddy, son of Sri K. Ramkrishna Reddy resident of Villa No. 160, Palm Meadows, Kompally, Hyderabad-500100, Telangana State

… Appellant

-Versus-

Appeals No. 39, 40, 51 and 52 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata

¶47

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, represented by its Authorised Officer, 3^rd Floor, Jewel Pawani Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500082;

¶48

Mr. Venu Akula, Resident of Flat No.618, Sundaram Building, Rama Raju Nagar, Suchitra, Ranga Reddy District – 500067;

¶49

Tunki Narender Rao, son of Late Tunki Balakistaiah Resident of H. No.5-64, Adarsh Nagar, Lingampally, Serlingampally, Hyderabad – 500019, Telangana State;

¶50

Tunki Raghavendra Rao, son of Sri Narender Rao Resident of H. No.5-64, Adarsh Nagar, Lingampally, Serlingampally, Hyderabad – 500019, Telangana State;

¶51

Prathima Akula, Plot No. 107, Sundaram Building, Rama Raju Nagar, Near Spencer Super Market, Suchitra Circle, Quthubullapur, Ranga Reddy-500055;

¶52

Venagro, represented by Partner, Mr. Venu Akula, Survey No.692 & 693, Part-1, Devarayamzal, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy DistrictTelangana – 500019.

¶53

... Respondents

¶54

Counsel for the Appellants … Mr. Nemani Srinivas Counsel for Respondent No. 1 … Mr. Tanish Ganeriwala Ms. Khushi Khaitan Ms. Namrata Chowdhury Counsel for Respondents 2 to 6 … Mr. Debasish Karmakar Mr. Rabindra Kumar Mitra Mr. Tamoghna Shah

¶55

With

¶56

Appeal No. 52 of 2025 (Arising out of S.A. 394 of 2023 in DRT-II, Hyderabad)

¶57

K. Rohit Reddy, son of Sri K. Ramkrishna Reddy resident of Villa No. 160, Palm Meadows, Kompally, Hyderabad-500100, Telangana State

¶58

… Appellant

¶59

-Versus-

¶60

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, represented by its Authorised Officer, 3^rd Floor, Jewel Pawani Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500082;

¶61

Mr. Venu Akula, Resident of Flat No.618, Sundaram Building, Rama Raju Nagar, Suchitra, Ranga Reddy District – 500067;

¶62

¶63

Appeals No. 39, 40, 51 and 52 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata

¶64

Tunki Narender Rao, son of Late Tunki Balakistaiah Resident of H. No.5-64, Adarsh Nagar, Lingampally, Serlingampally, Hyderabad – 500019, Telangana State;

¶65

Tunki Raghavendra Rao, son of Sri Narender Rao Resident of H.No.5-64, Adarsh Nagar, Lingampally, Serlingampally, Hyderabad – 500019, Telangana State;

¶66

Prathima Akula, Plot No. 107, Sundaram Building, Rama Raju Nagar, Near Spencer Super Market, Suchitra Circle, Quthubullapur, Ranga Reddy-500055;

¶67

Sriveni Marketing, represented by Proprietor, Mr. Venu Akula, Survey No. 692 & 693, Part-1, Devarayamzal, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District – Telangana – 500019.

¶68

... Respondents

¶69

Counsel for the Appellants

¶70

Counsel for the Appellants … Mr. Nemani Srinivas Counsel for Respondent No. 1 … Mr. Tanish Ganeriwala Ms. Khushi Khaitan Ms. Namrata Chowdhury

¶71

Counsel for Respondents 2 to 6 … Mr. Debasish Karmakar Mr. Rabindra Kumar Mitra Mr. Tamoghna Shah

¶72

JUDGMENT : 18^th November, 2025

¶73

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:

¶74

1. Appeal No. 39 of 2025 is filed by the Secured Creditor, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited while Appeal No. 52 of 2025 (K. Rohit Reddy -vs- Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited) is filed by the Auction Purchaser, K. Rohit Reddy against the judgment and order dated 11^th March, 2025 passed by Learned DRT-II, Hyderabad in S.A. 394 of 2023 (Mr. Venu Akula & Others -vs- Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Another) whereby Learned DRT allowed the Securitization Applications quashing the auction sale dated 20.12.2023 pursuant to e-Auction Sale Notice dated 18.11.2023.

¶75

¶76

Appeals No. 39, 40, 51 and 52 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata Consequentially, sale confirmation as well as sale certificate dated 23.01.2024 was also set aside.

¶77

2. Appeal No. 40 of 2025 is filed by the Secured Creditor, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, while Appeal No. 51 of 2025 is filed by the Auction Purchaser, K. Rohit Reddy against the judgment and order dated 11^th March, 2025 passed by Learned DRT-II, Hyderabad in S.A. 395 of 2023 (Mr. Venu Akula & Others -vs- Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Another) whereby Learned DRT set aside the auction sale conducted on 20.12.2023 pursuant to e-Auction Sale Notice dated 18.11.2023. Consequently, sale confirmation and sale certificate dated 23.1.2024 was also set aside. Bank was directed to refund the bid amount to the Auction Purchaser with 6% interest simple.

¶78

3. Since all the appeals have arisen against a common set of facts whereby common facts and issues are involved, hence all the appeals are being decided simultaneously. 4. As per pleadings of the parties, S.A. 395 of 2025 and S.A. 394 of 2025 were filed by the Borrowers to set aside the Possession Notice dated 9.8.2023, Sale Notice dated 16.8.2023, e-Auction sale held on 20^th December, 2023 pursuance to e-Auction Sale Notice dated 18.11.2023 and consequential Sale Certificate dated 23^rd January, 2024 issued in favour of the Auction Purchaser, namely, K. Rohit Reddy.

¶79

5. S.A. was filed by the Securitization Applicants wherein Securitization Applicant No. 5, namely Venagro, represented by Partner Venu Akula. The main Borrower, Venu Akula in

¶80

¶81

Appeals No. 39, 40, 51 and 52 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata personal capacity and Co-Borrowers, Tunki Narender Rao, Tunki Rahjavender Rao and Prathima Akula as Guarantors, availed the loan from the Secured Creditor, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited.

¶82

6. Secured Creditor, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, preferred an appeal while the Auction Purchaser, K Rohit Reddy, preferred a separate appeal and the Respondents in the appeal are Securitization Applicants.

¶83

7. Respondents availed the loan facility from the Secured Creditor but the repayment became irregular; as such the account was classified as N.P.A. which was also challenged by the SARFAESI Applicants; being illegal. 8. As per pleadings, Notice, under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), was issued which was duly replied by the Borrowers under Section 13 (3A) of the Act but was rejected by the Bank. Notice under Rule 8 (6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) does not indicate the date of auction. There was no affixation, as required under Rule 8 (7) of the Rules. Authorised Officer did not comply with the provisions of Rule 8(5) of the Rules. Outstanding amount, as per Auction Notice, was Rs.3.15 crore only while the secured assets, which were open plots and were divisible, were put for sale together with a reserve price of Rs.9.00 crore which is against the settled principles of law. Value of the property is more than Rs.15.00 crore.

¶84

¶85

Appeals No. 39, 40, 51 and 52 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata 9. Bank filed the reply. It is stated that SARFAESI Applicants, Respondents herein, are Borrowers who availed financial facility. Loan was secured by hypothecation of movables and mortgage of immoveable properties. Restructuring, as claimed by the SARFAESI Applicants, were not in accordance with the RBI circulars. Due to default in payment, account was classified as N.P.A. Demand Notice was issued on 25.10.2021 and notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act dated 9.8.2023 was also affixed at the secured properties and published in ‘Nava Telangana’ and ‘Business Line’ Telgu and English dailies on 10.8.2023. Notice under Rule 8 (6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules) was dated 16.8.2023. E-Auction Sale Notice was issued on 18.11.2023 fixing e-Auction on 20.12.2023 which was duly received by the SARFAESI Applicants. Notices were published in ‘Nava Telangana’ and ‘Business Line’ Telgu and English newspapers on 18.11.2023. Notices were also affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured assets. E-Auction was conducted and the sale was confirmed in favour of the Auction Purchaser. Valuation Report was obtained as per the law. Schedule property is indivisible hence Bank was forced to put the whole property for sale.

¶86

10. Auction Purchaser also made similar statement as made by the Secured Creditor.

¶87

11. Learned DRT framed the following two issues:

¶88

i) Whether the Appellants made out any valid ground for quashing the measures initiated by the 1^ST Respondent Bank against the S.A. schedule property including the auction proceedings dated

¶89

¶90

Appeals No. 39, 40, 51 and 52 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata 20.12.2023 pursuant to auction sale notice dated 18.11.2023 under the provisions of Securitisation Act? ii) To what relief?

¶91

12. Learned DRT recorded a finding that the Bank considered the case for restructuring. Reply of representation under Section 13 (3A) of the Act was also given by the Bank in accordance with the Rules.

¶92

13. Secured assets were open piece of land, accordingly, Possession Notice was affixed on a big tub lying on the land. Accordingly, issue of affixation does not find favour from the DRT. Learned DRT further held that compliance of Rule 8 (7) of the Rules was duly made by the Bank.

¶93

14. Learned DRT recorded a finding that the Amendment Application was allowed on the ground of continuous cause of action which was not challenged; hence issue of limitation cannot be a question to be decided now. Further Learned DRT held that the entire property was sold for Rs.9.00 crore for recovery of Rs.3.15 crore which is not in accordance with law as the property is divisible. Accordingly, Learned DRT held the sale to be illegal. Learned DRT, although considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CELIR LLP -vsBafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited & Others [(2024) 2 SCC 1] but held that there is arbitrariness on the part of the Authorised Officer and illegality in bringing the entire property to sale though only a part would have been sufficient to satisfy the claim and collusiveness also cannot be ruled out. Interference of the Tribunal is warranted.

¶94

¶95

Appeals No. 39, 40, 51 and 52 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata Accordingly, Learned DRT allowed the S.A. filed by the SARFAESI Applicants.

¶96

15. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment in both S.A. 394 of 2023 and S.A. 395 of 2023, Secured Creditor, Bank as well as Auction Purchaser preferred different appeals.

¶97

I have heard the Learned Counsel for Secured Creditor. Auction Purchaser as well as the Borrowers and perused the record.

¶98

16. Learned Counsel for the Secured Creditor would submit that the judgment and order passed by Learned DRT is arbitrary, against law and illegal. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the Securitization Application is allowed merely on the ground that the secured assets are divisible and the Authorised Officer has illegally auctioned the secured assets in one chunk. Learned Counsel would further submit that no evidence, whatsoever it may be, is adduced by the Respondents herein to prove that the secured assets are divisible in nature rather they created equitable mortgage by deposit of the title deed wherein all the four plots were involved. Title deed of all the four plots were deposited by the Borrowers. All the four plots are indivisible; there cannot be any criteria for separating them for e-Auction of a particular portion of the secured assets.

¶99

17. Learned Counsel for Appellant would further submit that the prayer sought for quashing the e-Auction Sale Notice as well as the e-Auction is barred by limitation. It was not challenged within 45 days from the date of issuance

¶100

¶101

Appeals No. 39, 40, 51 and 52 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata of the e-Auction Sale Notice or so much so, an amendment application, I.A. 3974 of 2023, was moved in the pending S.A. on 18.12.2023 but the same was not pressed on 12.7.2024 by the SARFAESI Applicants without seeking any liberty to file the same afresh. Thereafter fresh application was moved on 12.7.2024 which was specifically barred by limitation.

¶102

18. Learned Counsel for Appellant would further submit that no plea of fraud, collusion or under valuation was taken by the SARFAESI Applicants in the pending S.A. but the Learned DRT set aside a confirmed e-Auction against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bafna (supra).

¶103

19. Learned Counsel would further submit that the amendment application moved by the Securitization Applicants was initially not pressed by them. Issue of indivisibility of secured assets could have been raised by the Securitization Applicants but was not raised. Accordingly, the liberty for restructure will not be applicable. 20. Learned Counsel for Auction Purchaser adopted the submission made by the Learned Counsel for Secured Creditor.

¶104

21. Learned Counsel for Respondents would submit that all the four plots No. 17, 18, 21 and 22 were mortgaged with the Secured Creditor. In the advancement of loan, recall letter, Notices under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Act, e-Auction Sale Notice, publication of Sale Notice and Sale Certificates were issued by the Secured Creditor. Separate boundaries of the plots have been shown which proves that

¶105

¶106

Appeals No. 39, 40, 51 and 52 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata the property was divisible but the Authorised Officer auctioned the whole property in one lot against the provisions of Rule 8 (5) of the Rules. Such action of the Authorised Officer clearly shows collusiveness of the Authorised Officer with the Auction Purchaser.

¶107

22. Learned Counsel for Respondents also placed reliance upon the valuation report filed by the Secured Creditor and submitted that there is specific mention of different boundaries of all the four plots. However, Learned Counsel, at one point, also challenged the valuation report on the ground that the same is not by an approved valuer.

¶108

23. We shall consider the issue of limitation first before entering into the merits of the matter. Initially, S.A. was filed by the Respondents, S.A. Applicants. Thereafter I.A. 3968 of 2023 was filed by the S.A. Applicants for amendment of the pleadings which was subsequently not pressed by the S.A. Applicants on 12.7.2024. Thereafter, I.A. 2064 of 2024 was filed afresh for the reliefs seeking cancellation of the sale conducted on 20^th December, 2023 in pursuance of the Sale Notice dated 18.11.2023 with consequential reliefs.

¶109

24. Learned Counsel for Respondents, S.A. Applicants, would submit that the amendment application was moved for setting aside the sale and the e-Auction Sale Notice which was well within time as it was a continuous cause of action. While Learned Counsel for Appellant, Secured Creditor, submits that the application for amendment was moved in July 2024 seeking relief of setting aside the sale

¶110

¶111

Appeals No. 39, 40, 51 and 52 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata dated 20^th December, 2023 in pursuance of the Sale Notice dated 18.11.2023. Initially S.A. was filed on 13^th September, 2023 while the e-Auction Sale Notice was issued on 18.11.2023 but was challenged on 12.7.2024. Subsequently, relief was sought for setting aside the sale conducted on 20.12.2023.

¶112

25. Section 17 (1) of the Act provides that the action of the Secured Creditor can be challenged within 45 days from the date on which such measure had been taken. Section 17 (1) of the Act reads as under:

¶113

“17. [Application against measures to recover secured debts]. - (1) An person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, [may make an application alongwith such fee, an may be prescribed,] to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken”.

¶114

26. At this stage, although law is settled that in case of continuous cause of action, any measure taken by the Secured Creditor under Section 13 (4) of the Act can be challenged by the Borrower but at the same time it has to be looked into that initially the Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Act was filed on 13^th September, 2023 and on that date although notice e-Auction Sale Notice dated 18.11.2023 was not issued but after issuance of the notice and even after conducting e-Auction on 20^th December, 2023 SARFAESI Applicants had sufficient opportunity to challenge the same but the same was not done rather an amendment application was moved for amendment of the SARFAESI Application but when the

¶115

¶116

Appeals No. 39, 40, 51 and 52 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata same was subsequently not pressed then it shall have no legal effect. Subsequently, fresh amendment application was moved challenging the e-Auction conducted 20^th December, 2023 in pursuance of the e-Auction Sale Notice dated 18.11.2023 which was effectively filed beyond 45 days. SARFAESI Applicants cannot take any advantage of the provisions that it was a continuous cause of action because Securitization Application was already pending.

¶117

27. Pending Securitization Application Sale Notice was issued and e-Auction was conducted which was subsequently confirmed. Thereafter, S.A. Applicants challenged the e-Auction which is clearly barred by limitation.

¶118

28. Another plea is raised by the Appellants that the Learned DRT has erred in recording a finding that the property was divisible by metes and bounds as plots number 17, 18, 21 part admeasuring 1250 sq. yards as one item and plot No. 21 part and 22 admeasuring 785 sq. yards as another item. Learned DRT simply recorded a finding that property worth Rs.9.00 crore was sold for recovery of around Rs.3.15 crore against law. Learned DRT failed to give any reasoning or ground as to how it had arrived at a conclusion that the property was divisible?

¶119

29. Learned Counsel for Respondents has placed reliance upon loan recall letter, notices under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Act, Sale Notice, publication, Sale Certificate and Valuation Report to substantiate his submission that the property was divisible. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ambati

¶120

¶121

Appeals No. 39, 40, 51 and 52 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata Narasayya -vs- M. Subba Rao & Another (AIR 1990 SC 119) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of Order 21 Rule 64 C.P.C. It has further held that care must be taken to put on sale such portion from the property to sale the consideration of which is sufficient to meet the claim in the execution proceedings. In Balakrishnan -vs- Malaiyandi Konar [(2006) 3 SCC 49] also it was held that the procedure of compliance of the Order 21 Rule 64 C.P.C. is mandatory requirement. In Ram Kishun & Others -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh & Others [(2012) 11 SCC 511] reliance was placed upon the judgment of Ambati Narasayya (supra). It was further held that “law requires a proper valuation report; its acceptance by the authority concerned by application of mind and then fixing the reserve price accordingly and acceptance of the auction bid taking into consideration that there was no possibility of collusion of the bidders. The authority is duty bound to decide as to whether sale of part of the property would meet the outstanding demand. Valuation is a question of fact and valuation of the property is required to be determined fairly and reasonably.” In Bhikchand S/o Dhondiram Mutha (Deceased) Through LRs -vsShamabai Dhanraj Gugale (Deceased) Through LRs (2024 SCC OnLine SC 929) the Hon’ble Apex Court has placed reliance on Ambati Narasayya (supra). Again in Maharaji Educational Trust -vs- Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited & Others [(2017) 14 SCC 453] same principle was laid down.

¶122

¶123

Appeals No. 39, 40, 51 and 52 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata 30. Law is well settled that if a portion of the property is sufficient for realizing the debt, then that should be done by the Secured Creditor.

¶124

31. Now we have to look into the details of the property mortgaged by the Borrower at the time of creation of mortgage. Two mortgages were created wherein four plots were mortgaged; all Nos. 17, 18, 21 Part and 22. In Annexure A of recall of loan-cum-invocation of guarantee notice dated 4.5.2023, in Annexure A property No. 1 is described as “all that piece and parcel of non-agricultural land bearing Plots No. 17, 18 and 21 part and admeasuring 1215.00 sq. yards” while property No. 2 is described as “all that piece and parcel of the non-agricultural land bearing Plot No. 21 part with an area of 285.00 sq. yards and Plot No. 22 Part with an area of 500.00 sq. yards admeasuring total area of 785.00 sq. yards”. Boundaries are also the same.

¶125

32. In the notices under Section 13 (2) dated 23^rd May, 2023 and 13 (4) dated 9.8.2023 of the Act, again same property details are mentioned.

¶126

33. Much reliance is placed upon the Valuation Report of Pratap G. Reddy. Learned Counsel for SARFAESI Applicants also placed reliance upon the same wherein the technical address of property was mentioned as plots No. 17. 18, 21 and 22, Aparna Palm Grove and the surrounding of the site as per site visit was North Plot No. 89 (Open plot); South 10 feet wide Road (Play Park Road), East 60 feet wide road; West 40 feet wide road while surrounding as per legal

¶127

¶128

Appeals No. 39, 40, 51 and 52 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata documents is mentioned as North Plot No. 89 Phase-II, South 10 feet wide road, East 60 feet wide road, West 40 feet wide road. Boundaries were matching and no discrepancy was found by the Valuer. In the remark it is mentioned that the subject property is an open plot. In the location map of the property in some milestones the plot numbers are shown. In the e-Auction Sale Notice again details are mentioned as mentioned in the notices under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Act. In Sale Notice also same details are mentioned.

¶129

34. Perusal of all these documents would show that mortgage was created for all the four plots. Only evidence on record about the physical verification of the property is the Valuation Report which too is relied upon by the Learned Counsel for Securitization Applicants. Perusal of the Valuation Report would show that it is reported as an ‘Open Plot’ and boundaries of all the properties or plots are given as one. It nowhere reflects that the properties are divisible in nature. When the properties are not divisible then how can it be ascertained as to which part of the property can be sold. Hon’ble Apex Court held that portion of the property can be sold which may satisfy the requirements of the Secured Creditor but at the same time, in the facts of the present case, it cannot be inferred as to what property was sufficient for sale to satisfy the claim of the Secured Creditor rather the properties are not at all divisible. Learned DRT has manifestly committed an error in holding that the

¶130

¶131

Appeals No. 39, 40, 51 and 52 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata properties are divisible in nature; accordingly recorded an illegal finding to that effect.

¶132

35. Accordingly, the judgment and order passed by Learned DRT suffers from material illegality and infirmity which is liable to be set aside. Appeals deserve to be allowed.

¶133

O R D E R

¶134

All the four appeals; Appeal No. 39 of 2025, Appeal No. 40 of 2025, Appeal No. 51 and Appeal No. 52 of 2025, are allowed. Judgment and order dated 11^th March, 2025, passed by Learned DRT-II, Hyderabad, is set aside. Consequently S.A. 394 of 2023 and S.A. 395 of 2023 (Mr. Venu Akula & Others -vs- Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Another) stand dismissed.

¶135

No order as to costs.

¶136

File be consigned to Record room.

¶137

Copy of the order be retained in the records of Appeal No. 40 of 2025, Appeal No. 51 of 2025 and Appeal No. 52 of 2025.

¶138

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

¶139

Order signed, dated and pronounced in open Court.

¶140

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson