Dismissed

Smt Islavath Bujji v. Canara Bank

DRT22 Oct 2024SA/144/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging auction sale notices, the Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the petition. The court held that as no sale was conducted by the bank in pursuance of the notices, no adjudication was required or there was no need to decide validity, and hence, no relief was entitled.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed; no sale was conducted, so no relief is due.

Smt Islavath Bujji versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER,2024

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.144,/2022

¶5

Smt. IslavathBujji, W/o Sri Nagulu, aged 46 years, 0cc:agriculture, R/o H.No.3-14lB, I slavathThanda, Mahammadapuram, Thirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District.

¶6

..Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Canara Bank, Rep. by its Authorized officer D.No. 1-7-70, Madhu Complex, Khammam branch, Khammam-SO7 003

¶9

..Respondent Bank

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant

¶11

Counsel for the Respondent

¶12

Sri J, Narendra Kumar Smt. Tarangini Pisap ati

¶13

-:ORDER:

¶14

This application is liled by the Applicant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, challenging the Auction Sale Notices dt.31 .05.2022 and 3O.O8.2O22 issued by the Respondent bankagainst the schedule property and to declare the void. ,/."xs-----S^"%J.

¶15

The averments made iri .Ee applidhon, in'#leli are that: : {t , zzocTm c L eur r'uLr i;lfr'-,, 't1 '4]

¶16

.W'

¶17

¶18

The Applicant along with Mr.Islavathchandru availed housing roan from the Respondent Bank by deposit of titre deeds in respect of the schedule property. The Applicant committed default in repayment of loan instalments and so, the Respondent Bank declared the loan account as NPA without giving any prior notice to the Applicant. Thereafter the Respondent Bank issued demand notice to the Applicant and later issued possession notice and sale notice dt.31.O5.2O22 for conducting auction of the schedule propert5z on 18.06.2022 and in the sale notice, reserye price is fixed at Rs.49,99,000/- whereas the market value of the schedule property is Rs.60 lakhs.

¶19

The Applicant obtained stay in respect of the sale notice dt.31.O5.2O22 however, the Applicant could not deposit the amount as directed by this Tribunar towards the compliance of interim stay order and so, the Respondent bank proceeded further and issued another Sale Notice dt.3o.o8.2o22 and the said sale notice is not valid. Hence, the SA.

¶20

¶21

Respondent Bank filed their Reply Statement denying alr the adverse allegations made in the SA. It is contended that theApplicant availed housing loan from the Respondent bank against the mortgage of schedule property and one IslavathChandru stood as guarantor and they executed necessary roan documents and later committed default in repayment of loan instalments. The Respondent Bank issued demand notice u/s 13(21 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and subsequently, issued possession notice and sale notice for conducting auction of the schedule property,however the said auction was not conducted in view of J^{passedby this Tribunal} subject to deposit of Rs.3 t but the Applicant caused delay in amount. So the are no merits in Applicant is not entitled '!,gclaim a"y*i"tief ""iq the SA. Accordingly, Re$ilgnderfl fi.ffiI,|@a ,o-O SMISS the SA.

¶22

¶23

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for Respondent Bankand also perused the material brought on record.

¶24

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶25

Wlether the Applicant established anA ualid ground for challenging the Auction Sale Notices dt.31.05.2022 & 30.08.2022 issued bg the Respondent Bank in respect of the schedule propertg?

¶26

ii) To uhat reliej?

¶27

Point No.lll:-

¶28

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶29

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed housing loan from the Respondent Bank against the mortgage of schedule property and later the Applicant failed to repay the loan amounts due. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that one IslavathChandru stood as guarantor to the loan transaction and he executed necessary loan documents.

¶30

The Respondent Bank in order to establish that it has followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made thereunder in issuing possession notice and also sale notice, has enclosed r"diiiiri'it ents along with the Reply filed -' cr(;."'-t ,t by them. As per th6.,$;ia#'Td.t$) ts, it is clear that after declaring the loan 'a'..orlrt {S ruPA, Respondent Bank issued licant. Admittedly, the o''.:"0 notice. dlro6 ?'?cHlft{' ln' Applrcant recelved the sard notlce. er, the Respondent Bankissued 2 and the said notice was

¶31

¶32

published in Telugu and English daily newspapers. Thereafter the Respondent Bankissued Auction Sale Notice dt.31 .os.2022 fixing the date of auction on 15.06.2022 and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers. But however, in view of the stay granted by this Tribunal vide orders dt. 16.06.2022, no sale was conducted in pursuance of the sale notice dt.3l.os.2o22 and so, there is no need to decide the validity or otherwise of the sale notice dt.3 l.os.2022. rn fact, the Respondent Bank issued another Sale Notice dt.30.0 g.2o22 fixing the date of auction on 30.09 .2022, however, the Respondent Bank has not conducted sale in pursuance of the said sale notice.

¶33

As no sale was conducted by the Respondent bank in pursuance of both the sale notices, nothing survives in the present sA for adjudication. So, the Applicant is not entitled for any relief. This point is answered accordingly.

¶34

Potnt No.(iil:-

¶35

In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶36

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated to the P.S transcribed bg her, corrected., signed. and pronounced. by me in the open court on this the 22a dag of October, 2024).

¶38

sd/-
(c. coPr CHANDI
PRESIDING OFFICER
GOPY <br>'yl: ltUr,
/a U--o- ,,/ .,>vlto/vV/
' Asst.
ART.I, H fi":'{il ,-( ' lc )

Smt Islavath Bujji v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Islavath Bujji v. Canara Bank

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

Ms Mourya Enterprises versus State Bank of India

M S Sai Kiran Granites versus State Bank of India

M S S K Industries versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus the Adilabad Expressway Private Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Vistan Next Gen Pvt. Ltd.

Mrs Kailas Sulochana versus State Bank of India