Allowed

Sri Dyavanapally Srinivas v. Union Bank of India

DRT19 Sept 2024SA/218/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's securitisation application challenging an e-Auction Sale Notice. The bank failed to file a reply or prove compliance with SARFAESI Act and Rules regarding demand/possession notices and auction conduct. Consequently, the impugned Notice was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned e-Auction Sale Notice dated 19.05.2023 issued against the schedule property is quashed. The Respondent Bank is permitted to proceed afresh after duly following mandatory provisions.

Sri Dyavanapally Srinivas versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1 gTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2C24

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.2 tA/2O23,

¶4

Sri Dyavanapally Srinivas, S/o VenkataNarasaiah, Aged 55 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No .l-64 I I I 2, Bejjanki, Siddipet District-505528. ... Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

UnionBank of India, Rep. by its Authorized Officer Bejjanki Branch, Bejjanki village, Bejjanki Mandal, Siddipet District ... Respondent Bank

¶7

Counsel for the Applicant : Sn D.Raghauulu Respondent Bank : Exparte

¶8

ORDER

¶9

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s. lr of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2oo2 (SARFAESI Act, 2oo2) challenging the e Auction sale Notice dt. lg.os.2o2s issued by the Respondent Bank fixing the date of auction on 22.06.2023 in respect of the schedule property and to set aside the same as illegal and void.

¶10

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicant availed m the Respondent Bank and

¶11

mortgaged the owards the security of the

¶12

repayment of limitted that the Applicant is ii

¶13

a Government of bills by

¶14

"'T'fr"b?? "ln9,o"'

¶15

sA 2L8/23

¶16

the Government, the Applicant could not pay some instalments. All of a sudden, the Applicant was shocked to see that the Respondent Bank was trying to sell the schedule property by issuing Sale Notice dt. 19.05.2023 even after receiving substantial amounts. The Respondent Bank failed to serve demand notice and possession notice on the Applicant. The Bank failedto follow Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in taking possession of the schedule property. Further, the E Auction Sale Notice dt. 19.05.2023 was not served on the Applicant and the same notice was neither published in two leading nev/spapers nor affixed on the schedule property. The bank failed to follow Rule 8(SX6X7)& (91) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2. Hence the SA_

¶17

¶18

The Respondent Bank in spite of service of notice, cailed absent and there was no representation even after giving several opportunities and hence the Respondent Bank was set exparte.

¶19

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant.

¶20

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶21

I Whether the Applicant has estabtisircd any uatid. ground.s for challenging tlrce Auction Sale Notice dt.1g.OS.2O23 fixing the date of auction on 27.06.2023 in respect of the schedule propertg?

¶22

ii) To uhat relief?

¶23

Polnt No.li)

¶24

The Applicant filed th the e Auction Sale Notice dt. 19.O5.2O23 i Bank by fixing the date of auction on application schedule property. But, the the SARFAESI

¶25

sA218/23

¶26

proceedings against the schedule properry, failed to justify their action by fi1ing Reply and produce necessary material documents to prove that the Bank has strictly followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder while issuing the Sale Notice dt. 19.05.2023 against the secured asset. The Bank has not evinced any interest in contesting the matter even after giving several opportunities and failed to file their Reply and material documents to disprove the allegations of the Applicant. In the absence of any material evidence to show that the Respondent Bank has duly complied with the mandated provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2OO2 while proceeding against the secured asset for sale of the schedule property, I hold that the Applicant has made a case for quashing the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank against the SA schedule property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.

¶27

Polnt No.lilli

¶28

¶29

In the result, SA 21812023 is allowed.

¶30

Accordingly, the impugned e Auction Sale Notice dt. 19.05.2023 issued by the Respondent Bank against the schedule property is hereby quashed. However, the Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed afresh against the SA schedule property to recover their dues by duly following the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules thereunder.

¶31

The Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶32

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶33

transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg l2thday of September, 2024).

¶34

sd/(G. coPrcHANDl PRESIDING OFFICER ff:,ffi ,PY;|ltl:'l?"^''

Sri Dyavanapally Srinivas v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Dyavanapally Srinivas v. Union 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Sri. Jawaharlal Gogoluthu

M S Zain Minerals Rep by Its Managing Partner Azghar Ahmed versus Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation

State Bank of India versus Sri. Gunter Naresh

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Zenith Import and Export

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mrs. Munigala Indira

T Subba Reddy versus State Bank of India