Dismissed

K Raghuram Reddy v. Vijaya Bank

DRT20 Jul 2023RA/1/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review application dismissed holding that the Respondent Bank duly followed SARFAESI Act procedure in conducting auction and no error apparent on face of record exists to warrant review of the impugned decree discharge order.

What did the court decide?

Review Application No. 1/2023 dismissed with no costs to any party.

What the court decided

K Raghuram Reddy versus Vijaya Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE ZO-IH DAY OF JULY,2023

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

REvrEw ApprrcRrroru No. 1 /zOZs Ir.t SA.No.3 /2O21

¶5

M/s. Laxmi Narasimha Mineral Water Plant, Rep. by its Proprietor: Smt Guguloth Sushila, W/o. late Goguloth Valya, aged about 37 yrs., R/o. Royal City Mallarugudem, Saidapur (V) Yadhagirigutta (M), Nalgonda Dist. - 508115. Also at: H.No.1-9- 1 102, Postal Colony, Adhalath, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal - 506 001.

¶6

Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Bank of India, Bhimaram Branch, Rep. by its Authorized Oflicer D.No.5- 1 1-503/504, Ground hloor, Naim Nagar, KU X Roads, Hanamkonda, Warangal District - 502 103.

¶9

Mr. P. Narsing Rao, S/o. Gandaiah, Rl o. 17 -l-376 I 3O4, LI3H 26, New Santhosh Nagar Colony, Near Venkateshwara Swami Temple, Saidabad, Hyderabad, Telangana-500059.

¶10

' 'aql'),.' "' -,,,c';
.'s w'
i,tu' ffi
20 JIIIm

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Counsel for Respondent No.2

¶12

Sn D. Raghauulu. Sn K. V. Nagesuara Rao. : Sn P. Sriharsha Reddy.

¶13

-:ORDER:-

¶14

This Review Application is filed by the Applicant in sA.No.3/2021 contending that the impugned order dt.26.09.2O22 in SA.No.3/2021 was passed by this Tribunal basing on the neat copy Iiled in SA after amendment and in fact in the said neat copy there are some mistakes and so there is need to review the impugned order dt.26.O9.2O22.

¶15

This application is resisted by Respondents No.1 & 2 by filing their Counters.

¶16

Review Appl icotion N o. 1/2023

¶17

J. Heard both sides.

¶18

Now, the point for consideration is whether the Review Applicant has established any ground warranting the review of impugned order dt.26.09.2022 passed by this Tribunar in SA.No.3 /2021?

¶19

Polnt:-

¶20

A perusa-l of the record makes clear that SA.No.3/2021 was filed by the sole Applicant challenging the auction of the application schedule property conducted by the l"t Respondent Bank on 2l.ol.2o2l Initially the said SA.No.3/2021 was filed against Bank of India i.e., Respondent No.1 only. Subsequently, after conducting of auction of the application schedule property, the Auction Purchaser was impleaded as Respondent No.2. This Tribunal, after hearing respective counsels, passed the impugned order dt.26.o9.2022, holding that the 1"t Respondent Bank has duly followed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act in conducting the auction of the application schedule property and ultimately, the said SA.No.3/2021 was dismissed. The Review Applicant in order to seek review of the order, has to establish that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. But, a careful perusal of the material available on record reveals that there is no such error apparent on the face of the record and only after carefully perusing the material available on record, this Tribunal passed the impugned order dt.26.o9-2o22. so, I see no grounds warranting review of order dt.26.09.2o22 passed in SA.No.3/2021. so, there are no merits in the present Review Application and same is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

In the result, t Review Application is dismissed. No costs. Communicate a copy E[ is order to the parties concerned. JU iM ?, '+^/, by him, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open courl on

¶22

sd/(c. coPrcHANDl PRESIDING OFFICER :M,

K Raghuram Reddy v. Vijaya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

K Raghuram Reddy v. Vijaya Bank

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sri.Taraka Rama Industries

State Bank of India versus Mr . Ramesh Madhuri

State Bank of India versus M S Kavyasri Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Rama Krishna Industries

Palthya Kalpana versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Smt. Potta Balamani