Partly allowed

Shriram Finance Ltd. v. Akshaya Color Gallery

DRAT9 Sept 2025REGULAR APPEAL/77/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal set aside the lower tribunal order allowing a securitization application due to lack of proof regarding the affixture of a sale notice. The matter was remitted to the DRT to investigate the address discrepancy and decide on merits expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The lower order allowing the SA is set aside; matter remitted to the DRT Presiding Officer to decide the issue of affixture of sale notice and dispose of the SA on merits.

Shriram Finance Ltd. versus Akshaya Color Gallery — Specific Performance | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 9^th of September, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON

¶4

RA (SA) 77/2024

¶5

Between

¶6

The Authorised Officer, Shiriram Finance Ltd., Formerly Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Branch Office at 3rd Floor, Kalburgi Square, Desal Cross, Deshpande Nagar, Hubballi, Karnataka 580029. … Appellant

¶7

And

¶8

M/S.Akshya Color Gallery 11 Ground Floor, 15th Cross, 2nd Bus Stop, Malagala, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, Bangalore, Karnataka 560 072, Represented by its Proprietor, Shylaja N.

¶9

M/s. Vijaya Lakshmi Trading Company, No.226/1, Backside 4th Main, 7th Cross, Market, Yeshwanthapura, Bangalore -560 022. Rep. by its Proprietor, Shylaja N.

¶10

¶11

Mrs.Shylaja N, W/o.Nagesh S, Aged about 48 years, No.130, Gurushree, 1st floor, 2nd Cross 2nd Block, Geology Layout, (ITI Layout), Bangalore 560 056.

¶12

Mr. Nagesh, S, S/o.Siddegowda, Aged about 52 years, No.130, Gurushree, 1st floor, 2nd Cross 2nd Block, Geology Layout, (ITI Layout), Bangalore 560056.

¶13

Manjunath Dasi Naik, 51,8th Main Road Byraveshwaranagar, Nagarabhavi Main Road, Bangalore, Karnataka. 560 072.

¶14

… Respondents

¶15

Counsel for Appellant : M/s. Ramalingam & Associates Counsel for Respondent 1 to 4 : Mr. J. Aravind Babu Counsel for R5 : Mr. Ravikiran,R.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This appeal is filed against the order passed by

¶18

the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I,

¶19

Karnataka at Bengaluru in S.A. 765/2002 on

¶20

27/05/2024.

¶21

¶22

It is the submission of the learned counsel

¶23

for the appellant that though several grounds have been raised before the Tribunal challenging the measures taken under the SARFAESI Act, especially the sale held on 24/06/2022, all other grounds had been negatived by the learned Presiding Officer, SA was allowed on the ground that the affixture of sale notice in the secured asset was not proved.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant filed IA 459/2025 to receive additional documents i.e. photograph taken in proof of affixture of sale notice in the secured asset.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4

¶26

concedes that SA was allowed only on the ground that the affixture of sale notice in the secured asset was not

¶27

proved, however, he challenges the document now produced on the ground that the address shown in the document is different from the address given in the secured asset in the securitization application.

¶28

¶29

Learned counsel for the auction purchaser

¶30

adopts the arguments of the learned counsel for the Bank.

¶31

In the light of the submissions made above,

¶32

this Tribunal is of the view that the appellant should be given an opportunity to prove the affixture of sale notice in the secured asset. Since there is a dispute with regard to the address shown in the document, this Tribunal is of the view that this aspect has to be enquired by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Karnataka at Bengaluru.

¶33

In such view of the matter, the order of the

¶34

learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal in allowing the securitization application on the ground that the affixture of sale notice is not proved alone is set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Karnataka at Bengaluru, for deciding the issue of affixture of sale notice and for disposal of the SA 765/2022 on merits and

¶35

¶36

in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this appeal

¶37

is disposed.

¶38

In the result, this appeal is disposed of.

¶39

Parties shall bear their own costs.

¶40

Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

[Dictated to steno, (ra), in open court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me this 9^th of September, 20245

¶42

Sd/- [ Justice G. Chandrasekharan] CHAIRPERSON

¶43

Shriram Finance Ltd. v. Akshaya Color Gallery

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram Finance Ltd. v. Akshaya Color Gallery

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sasidharan T and others versus Federal Bank

Ms Supreme Traders and 9 Others versus State Bank of India

Noel Michael Saldanha and 1 Anr. versus Canara Bank

Electronica Finance versus Mr Damodharan

Karnataka Bank Limited and one Another versus Ramesh B Gowda and three Ors.

Dr.D.L.Vijayakumar versus Sri Ramesh B. Gowda