Dismissed

J R Traders v. State Bank of India

DRT8 Dec 2023SA/164/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the bank's sale notice. The court held the sale notice became infructuous as the auction did not take place due to conditional stay orders, and the applicant was estopped from raising issues already adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

The present Securitization Application is dismissed; interlocutory applications are disposed of; no costs.

J R Traders versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL^- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMER, 2C^23

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No. 164/2C^22

¶5

J.K. Traders, ll-137, 138, Near Gandhi Chowk, Sri Vijayalaxmi Rice MiIl Compound, Huzurnagar, Suryapet District,

¶6

Rep. by its Prop: K. Kamisetty Ravikumar.

¶7

Smt Kamisetty Fushpavathi, W/o. Sri Kamisetty Sheshagiri, H.No.lI-147, Near Gandhi Chowk, Huzurnagar (V&M), Nalgonda District.

¶8

Applicants.

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-Il H.No.1-8-563/ 1, RTC X Roads, Opp. Sandhya Theatre, lst Floor, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 500020. Rep. by its Authorized Officer.

¶11

Respondent.

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant

¶13

Counsel for the Respondent

Sn S. Srikanth.

Sn C. Prabhakar.

-:ORDER:-

1' This application is filed by the Applicants u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2, challenging the sale Notice dt.04.06.2022, published by the Respondent Bank in !I,q,rfr"**p-ap_-e,js, fixing the auction of the application schedule gr8peffi on l1.OZ .Z}ZZ. r -' J,

¶18

The averments ryade in the' applicatibh,'r\in brief, are that, the Applicanrs avaited;cf;edit [.&ri$fJ*^ifoal. ,Y,I,,$ of Rs.1s.oo lakhs in the

¶19

y ear 2o1 3, from ttiii.-&qRondent u".ru.udd.reafter, paid substantial amounts towards t&&tfSit:',=,.ffi' therearter' due to severe

¶20

SA.No.164/2022

¶21

financial crunch the Applicants could not pay the loan instalments. The Applicants submitted ors proposal to the Respondent Bank but the Respondent Bank rejected the same and proceeded under the SARFAESI Act. The Respondent Bank, without serving Demand Notice, Possession Notice and Notice prior to sale, straightway published the Sale Notice dt.04.06.2022 in the newspapers for auction of the application schedule property. Further, the Possession Notice and the Sale Notice were neither affixed on the schedule property nor published in two leading newspapers. So, the Respondent Bank has violated the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, 2oo2 and as such the Sale Notice dt.04.06.2022 is liable to be set-aside. Hence the SA.

¶22

¶23

The Respondent Bank filed its Reply Statement contending that, the Applicants earlier fiIed SA.No.167 12O19 before this Tribunal, wherein they have challenged the Demand Notice, possession Notice, Notice prior to sale dt.07.01.2019 and also the e-Auction Sale Notice dt.07.05.2019 and this Tribunal vide a detailed order dt.16.0I.2020, dismissed the said sA.No. 167 l2o2o holding that the Respondent Bank has duly followed the entire procedure contemplated under the SARFAESI Act. After dismissal of the said SA, the Respondent Bank has published Auction Notice dt.04.06.2022 in Mana Telangana and Hans India newspapers, fixing the auction of the schedule property on LL.o7.2022 and same was brought to the notice of the Applicant vide letter dt.06.06.2022. The said Auction Notice was also affixed on the schedule property. Along with the present sA, the Applicant filed IA.No.794 12022 and obtained conditional stay orders dt.04.o2.2022 and so, the Respondent Bank has not conducted the auction of the schedule propert5r ._o-!-",r1Q7.2o22. In view of non-conducting of {.' :^--' r'i 'r impugned irt';the present SA, has in fructuous and hence the present SA

¶24

¶25

sA.No.764/2022

¶26

Heard arguments.

¶27

Now, the points that arise for consideration^are,-

¶28

i) Whether the Applicant has established^{any valid grounds for} setting aside the Auction Sale^{Notice dt.04.06.2022, published by} the Respondent Bank in the newspapers,^{fixing the auction of the} schedule property on^{11 .O7.2022?}

¶29

ii) To what relief.)

¶30

Point No.(il:-

¶31

There is no dispute regarding the fact^{that the Applicantsavailed} credit facility from the Respondent^{Bank and thereafter committed} default in the repayment of the^{loan amount. The Applicants have also} not disputed creation of mortgage over^{the applicationschedule} property in favour of the Respondent Bank to^{securethe said credit} facility. It is the contention of the^{Applicants that, the Respondent} Bank without serving Demand Notice,^{PossessionNotice and Notice} prior to Sale and without affixing and^publishing the^{said notices in} the newspapers, straightaway^{published theAuctionNotice} dt.04.06.2022 in the newspapers,^fixing the^{auction of the schedule} property on 11 .O7.2022.

¶32

Admittedly, the Applicants herein earlier^{filed SA.No.167} l2OL9^before this Tribunal challenging the earlier^{Sale Noticedt.07.05.2019,issued} by the Respondent Bank, with self-same^{grounds as} -raised^{in the} present SA that, the Demand No.ticd:;-jt-Sesqion^{Notice and the Notice} a "^t. ,'^'- '^''t'-':1t-' prior to sale \vere not serV6d--ori therni =Th.&" Tribunal^{vide order} 1.,.r; ' t.".'...",. i:.'^+. dt. 16.0 L2O2O dismissed,.thg,.said SA.No.167 / 20'19,^{holding that the} and Notice prior to sale, I4qglu{ing the earlie(js{.fe:,r{:f$Notice^{in resPect of}

¶33

SA.No.764/2022

¶34

the scheduie^{property.A copy of the said order of this Tribunal} dt.16.0 1.2020^{passed insA.No. 167} l2otg^{has been filed by the} Respondent Bank^{along with its Reply Statement. Since the said} issues have already^{been decided by this Tribunal in the earlier} SA.No. 167 l2}lg^{filed by the Applicants,the Applicants are now} estopped from^{raising said issues again. It is also an admitted fact} that the auction^{of the schedule propertycontemplated by the} Respondent Bank on^{11.07.2022, pursuant to the AuctionNotice} dt.o4.o6.2022, did^{not take place in view of the conditionalstay orders} passed by this Tribunal,^{which have been complied with by the} Applicants. As the^{auctiondid not take place pursuant to Auction} Notice dt.04.06.2022,^{the said Auction Noticehas become infructuous} and nothing survives^{in the presentSA. So, the presentSA is liable to} be dismissed. Accordingly,^{this point isanswered against the} Applicant and in favour^{of the RespondentBank'}

¶35

Point No.(iil:-

¶36

In the result, the^{present Securitization Application is dismissed.} consequently, the^{Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall} stand disposed of. No^costs.

¶37

g. communicate a copy^{of this order to the partiesconcerned.}

¶38

(Dictated to the^priuate Secretary,^{transcibed.bghim, corrected,stgned and pronounced bgme in theopencourt on} this the Eh daa of December,^2023).

¶39

sdl - (G. GOPICHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶40

TRq"EF COpy
t,,f,::M
,.f"T:,;ffg:fi'if"

J R Traders v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J R Traders v. State Bank of India

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

State Bank of India versus Syed Muzaffer Hussain

K Ramvikas versus Gic Housing Finance Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S.Vallabh Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (Arcil) versus M/S. Maqdoom Moghny Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ganapathi Bricks

M S Tudor Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. versus Ifci Limited