In an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, the applicant challenging auction proceedings sought quashing due to alleged procedural violations. The Tribunal disposed of the application as infructuous because the auction scheduled on 18.10.2022 was not successful.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL -II AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE19THDAY OF SEPTEMBER,2024
PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWARKOTHE,B.COM.,L.LB. (HONS.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER
SECURITISATIONAPPLICATION No. 307 OF 2022
Mr. VeerabhadraPPaP.K. S/o 65years, Occ:Business H. No. 21/2308, Mandigiri Adoni-518307, A.P. .......Applicant.
Versus
| 1. | Karnataka BankLtd. PlotNo.50,SrinagarColonY RoadNo.3,BanjaraHills Hyderabad-500073. Rep.byitsAuthorisedOfficer. |
|---|---|
| 2. | M/s.Sree Veerabhadreswara CommissionAgents,ReP.bYits PartnerMr.Yaggatti ShivaPrasad |
New Mini GowdenNo.12 APMCMarket Yard,Adoni-518301. ......Respondents. |
Counsel for the Applicant :Mr. T. SridharReddy' Counsel for 7't Respondent :Mr. N. RamaRao. : Ex7arte. 2'd Respondent
-:re-E-B:-
sA, 3OL/2022
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to aS "SARFAESI Act 2002") assailing auction of SA scheduled properties fixed on 18.10.2022 pursuant to sale notice dated 08.09.20 2 2.
L-./
sA.3OLl2022
properties has filed 5A.247/2022 separately and the same is pending adjudication. Due to default in repayment by 2nd respondent, respondent issued demand notice on 20.09.2021, copy of which has been served on the applicant. The dues were not discharged despite demand notice. Hence possession notice u/s 13(4) has been issued on 08.03.2022, affixed on the secured assets besides publishing in Prajasakti and Indian Express dailies on 13.03.2022. Applicant has received the possession notice. The e-auction notice dated 08.09.2022 has been published in Sakshi and Business Standard dailies on 10.09.2022. There is no violation of the provisions of the Securitisation Act and the Rules thereunder.
The 2'd respondent was set ex-parte as the notice sent to him has been returned un-served with an endorsement "refused". Hence 2nd respondent was set ex-parte vide docket order dated 09.11.2023.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant reported that orders may be passed on merits. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 1't respondent bank. Perused the material brought on record.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as the borrower-2nd respondent committed default in repayment as per the agreed terms, respondent bank initiated securitisation proceedings after classifying the loan account as NPA in line with the RBI guidelines. Respondent bank has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules in taking steps against the secured assets for
//Kgt/^v' lj//'q-
sA.3OL/2O22
recovery of its dues. Accordingly,learned counsel prayed for dismissal of SA in the interest ofjustice.
i) Whether the Applicants made out any valid ground for quashing the auction sale held on 18.10.2022 pursuant lo sale nolice dated 08.09.2022 uguinst the SA schedule properlies under the provisions td Securitisation Act ?
iil To what relie.f?
Point No. (i)
B. During theproceedings held on 14.03.2024, learned counsel appearing for the 1tt respondent bank reported that the auction scheduled on 20.10.2022 pursuant to sale notice dated 08.09.2022 was not successful. Therefore, in the light of this development, the SA becomes infructuous in so far as the sale notice and its relatedgrievances are concerned.
The other grievances of the applicant are non-compliance of provisions of Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and Rules 8(1) and B(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, To controvert these allegations, 1tt respondent bank filed aphotocopy of demand notice addressed to borrower and others including applicant at page No.4 of the material papers annexed to the reply statement. Respondent bank placed on record the postal registration receipts and postal track report of service of demand notice on the applicant vide ,//M.vv U "o"-
wx)!,.-,r 4tllrtbZ 'slsof, ol sP rapJo oN.pasolf puets lleqs 'lup lt 6urpuad suotleltlddV fu olnf, olJalul'^lluanbasuol 'passru-rstp lqa"taq sl pue s!el vs aLll,llnsar 3ql uI
'zl .II
(r!).oN lurod
']trV ISIVJUVS aqt Japun lueq tuapuodsar aql lq paletlrut saJnseaur alll eptse las ol punoJ6 prle^ Iue lno aleu, ol peltPl lueslldde,saluelsulnf,lrf pue slfpJ a^oqe aql Jo tq6tl aqt uI
,OI
.passtulstp aq ol alqetl st VS aql,atuaH.aJrlou uorssassod Jo uotleollqnd pue arnlxuJe 'asr^ias aqt ur lueq tuapuodsar aLll Iq ZOOZ ,salnu (lualuatroJul) tsalatul aqf lo (Z)g pue (I)B salnu aql pue ltv uollestltJnf,es ^ttrnf,as aLlt Jo (r)rI uolllas lo suorst^old Jouorlelot^ pulJ lou op I,ajoJajaLl] .pa^oJds!p spuets ool lunof, srql uo uotlualuof, s,luelrlddv.luelrldde aql uo autes aql Jo aft^ias a^oJd ol spJel luaLuaopalMou)fe lelsod saplsaq luauJatels lldar aql ol paxauue stadpd leualeu aql lo Zt ol gI soN e6ed aprn luellldde aql uo aollou uorssassod Jo atr^ras Jo lf,adsar ut ]Joda.t l3e_tl lelsod pue sldratal uotle..tlst6aJ lptsod aql se llaM se af,llou uorssassod lo uollelllqnd pue slessp paJnfas uo aftlou uotssassod Jo aJnlxule oulMoqs sqdejooloqd 'af,rlou uotssassod lo ldol lelsoloqd palU lueq luapuodsal 'Alrelruts.pa^oJd lou st )iueq tuapuodsar lq (Z)EI uottlas loaf,uerldLuof,-uou Jo af,up^au6 aql ,aJoJaJaql .lueujalels lldal aql ol paxeuup sladed leualeru aLlt Jo tI pue 6 sa6pd
zzoaltog.vs
sA.3Otl2022
uploadin Web Portal'
lDictotedto theSteno'siqned ond pronounced by
doy olSePtembet,2024)
me in theo4en courton this the 19th
K**^
€sHwnaKorHE) PRESIDINGOFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicant made out valid grounds for quashing the auction sale under the provisions of the Securitisation Act?
To what relief?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Veerabhadra P.K.
Karnataka Bank Ltd.
M/s. Sree Veerabhadreswara Commission Agents
Rameshwar Kothé
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
