Dismissed

State Bank of India v. Sri. Muttagi Srisailam

DRT11 Jun 2025OA/265/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, the applicant challenged a sale notice issued by the respondent bank. The court noted that no auction was conducted and held that as the relief claimed could not be granted and no merits existed, the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The respondent bank was directed to scrupulously follow the procedure, but the application was dismissed as the relief claimed could not be granted due to lack of merits.

State Bank of India versus Sri. Muttagi Srisailam — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE ] 1TF] DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.265/2023

¶4

Sri Narasimha Reddy Kasireddy, S/o Chinna Reddy, Aged 60 years, Occ:business, Rl o 2-13 1, Kanchiravupalli, Pebair Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Dist.

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Asset Recovery Management branch, Plot No.50, Srinagar Colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-sOO 073.

¶8

Rep. by its Authorized officer

¶9

... Respondent Bank

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Sn ?. Sridhar Reddy Counsel for Respondent bank : Sri N.Meher Prasad

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Application is filed u/ s. 17of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2O02) challenging the Sale Notice dt.16.06.2023 issued by the Respondent for conducting auction of the schedule property on 17.O8.2O3 and to declare the same as null and void.

¶13

The averments mad

¶14

n brief are as follows:

¶15

The Applicant ndent Bank and thereafter committed defriu :6iues. All of a sudden, the ,si

¶16

Respondent Bank sent some persons to the schedule property on 24.07.2023 and they informed that they are intending purchasers of the schedule property and they furnished a copy of the Sale Notice dt.16.O6.2O23 issued by the bank to the Applicant. Before issuing the said sale notice, the Respondent Bank failed to issue notice u/r g(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 lor giving an opportunity to the Applicant to redeem the schedule property. The Respondent has not published the impugned possession notice and sale notice in two leading newspapers and also not affixed the said notices on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶17

The Respondent filed their Reply denying a1l the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the proposed auction pursuant to the impugned Sale Notice dt.16.06.2O2S was not materialized. prior to issuing the said sale notice, the Respondent bank issued possession notice dt.24.07.2O2O and the saidnotice was affixed on the schedule property and it was also published in two daily newspapers. Hence the SA becomes infructuous. Accordingly, Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶18

Heard Ld. counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for the Respondent Bank and perused the material brought on record.

¶19

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶20

ulhether the SA ts liable be dismissed as the relief clamed bg the Applicant

¶21

ii. To what

¶22

,1JuilZffi

¶23

Potnt JVo.(if:_

¶24

During the course of ar Ld. Counser ,,-_ .,^" :' guments, Ld. cr the Respondent ."it..ut.,'unsel for the A stated .uf,:l.,bt r their respectiv'PPlicant^and : versions as

¶25

The present SA is fil dt.16.06. ,,rrr;."., #"' challenging the impugned sare Notice of the .,''0" issued by the Rttpo.ro.ft u..rt for conducting auction :hedure property on I 7.0g.2023. But in view of the firing of present SA, no auction was conducted b the said sare Notice dt.16.06. 2023 and "::::""J*,xffi::r the validitv or otherwise or the said notice ,TJ,:]ilTffij|*rding

¶26

¶27

The Appricant filed the present sA contending that the Respondent Bank has not issued notice u/r 3(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rule s, 2oo2 before issuing the impugned sale notice. So, suffice, a direction is given to the Respondent Bank to scrupulously follow the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act' 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing fresh sare notice to the Applicant for conducting auction of the schedule property. So this point is answered accordingly.

¶28

Point No.(il):-

¶29

¶30

In the result, dismissed as there are no merits. Consequen plications, pending if any, shall stand dispose$of. No rasto !b 1 1^{Jtflq nfi} i.d

¶31

l0.Communicate a copy of this^{order to the partiesconcerned.}

¶32

(/],lctated to the P.S, transci'bed^{by ter, corrected', signed and pronouncedbg me in the open} court on this the l^{lthdaA of June' 2025).}

¶33

sdl_ (G. GOPI CHAND) PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶34