Allowed

Sri Vattipally Saidulu v. State Bank of India

DRT18 Jan 2024SA/91/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, setting aside a property auction conducted on 19.04.2022 due to the bank's failure to serve, affix, or publish mandatory notices as required by the Act and Rules.

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed by setting aside the auction of the schedule property and disposing of pending interlocutory applications.

Sri Vattipally Saidulu versus State Bank of India — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE I STH DAY OF JANUARY,2C24

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.g1./2c22

¶5

Sri Vattipally Saidulu, S/o. Gangaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Bike Mechanic, R I o.6-7 -3O2 I 3 / I I A, Shivaram Nagar, Nalgonda - 508 001 .

¶6

Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Ravindra Nagar Branch , #6-6-476, Ravindra Nagar, Hyderabad Road, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶9

Respondent.

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Respondent

¶11

Sri D. Raghauulu. Ex-parte.

¶12

-:ORDERi

¶13

This application is fired by the Appricants u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the auction of the application schedule property conducted on t9 .O4 .2022, in pursuance of the e_Auction Sale Noticedt. 16.O3.2022, issued by the Respondent Bank.

¶14

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicant availed Housing Loan of Rs. 1S,92,40gl_ for construction of the house from the Respondent Bank. However, all of a sudden on 18,O4.2022, the Res take physical possession 7 of vr the lrrv applicqy1Ju, a Lr(,rrtion schuurrccurlle:_proper[y\n fiEs.Rnce of the proceedings

¶15

colrectd+./&: Magist.i{re. N.;e-I, in c218888/2021, :1l1. :,::l.t !!.i"'.'?:' ::l^"ttj1?BY;rr7fr26cop)it{} 'n' '-o'"tion^sare Notice dt. I 6. o 3.2022,i\ \r?+l 11$ere ih - tfre aat'e(rof;S of the schedule .il.f;-,,nrrr;* $7 "---g|

¶16

SA.No,91/2022

¶17

property was Iixed on 19.O4.2022. Despite substantial payments made by the Applicant, the Respondent Bank conducted the auction of the schedule property on 19 .O4.2O22, without duly following the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act. The Respondent Bank has failed to serve Demand Notice u/s. 13(2), possession Notice u/s. 13(a) and the Sale Notice under Rule 8(6) of the SARF.AESI Act and the Rules, 2002. The Respondent Bank has also failed to affix Possession Notice and Sale Notice on the schedule property and has also failed to publish the said notices in two leading newspapers. Hence the SA.

¶18

Despite service of notice, the Respondent did not choose to appear before this Tribunal and Respondent remained ex_parte.

¶19

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant.

¶20

The points that arise for consideration are,_

¶21

Whether the Applicant has made out any valid grounds for setting aside the auction of the schedule property conducted on

¶22

19.04.2022, pursuanr to the e-Auction Sale Notice dt.16.O3.2022?

¶23

ii) To what relief) 6%\ Polnt No.ll):E^{19 ,':N 20zt} : 6. There is no dispute Housing Loan from thefu-tr,"::=$*9 Applicant availed mortgaging the application schedule property. tion of the Applicant that, despite substantial payments made by him towards the loan account, the Respondent classified his loan account as NpA and sold the application schedule property on 19.o4.2022 under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, without serving, affixing and publishing any

¶24

SA.No.91/2022

¶25

prior notices u/s.13(2) & t3(4) of the SARFAESI Act r/w. Rules 8 & 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2. As stated supra, despite service of notice, the Respondent Bank did not choose to controvert the version of the Applicant by filing its Reply statement along with material documents. In the absence of any proof, towards compliance of the mandatory provisions under the SARFAESI Act by the Respondent Bank, I am constrained to hold that, the auction of the schedule property conducted by the Respondent Bank on 19.o4.2022, in pursuance of the e-Auction sale Notice dt. t6.o3.2o22, is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, I hold that this point is answered in favour of the Applicant.

¶26

Potnt No.ltl):-

¶27

In the result, the present Securitization Application is allowed by setting aside the auction of the schedure propert5r conducted by the Respondent Bank on 19.04.2022, in pursuance of the e-Auction sale Notice dt.16.03.2022. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶28

8. communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶29

(Dctated to the Priuate Secretary, transcribed. by him, corrected., signed. and. pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 1&h day of January, 2024).

¶30

sdl(c. coPrcHANDl PRESIDING OFFICER

¶31

*i;;ru

Sri Vattipally Saidulu v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vattipally Saidulu 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India, versus M/S. Disha Systems India Private Limited

Ms Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (Rarc) versus M/S. Aswarth Usha

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Paturi Muralikrishna

State Bank of India versus M S. Datta Filling Station

Indian Bank versus M/S. S.V. Logistics

State Bank of India versus M/S.Pushpa Trading