Dismissed

Smt Siddamma v. State Bank of India

DRT24 Apr 2025SA/110/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a sale certificate executed by the Bank. Holding that the Sale Certificate is an administrative action consequential to sale and not a measure under Section 13(4), the Court ruled the application not maintainable absent a challenge to the sale itself.

What did the court decide?

SA No.110 of 2024 dismissed; all pending IAs stand closed. Parties to bear respective costs.

Smt Siddamma versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE

¶2

Dated 24th day of April 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA No.110 of 2024

¶5

Smt Siddamma, W/o. Rukanna, D/o. Mallikarjun Sirasgi, Aged about 54 years, R/o.8-14545, Ring Road, Munim Sangh, Nehru Gunj, Kalaburgi 585 104.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Office: Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Ground Floor, Avani Emporio, Beside Anant Residency, Jayachamaraja Nagar, Hubbali, Karnataka 580 020.

¶9

Also at: State Bank of India, SME Branch, Unity Complex, KIADB, Kapnoor Indl. Area, Phase-I, Humnabad Road, Kalaburgi 585 104.

¶10

Sri Mallikarjun, S/o. Anadappa Sirasgi, Aged about 87 years,

¶11

¶12

Sri Shivanand, S/o. Mallikarjun Sirasgi, Aged about 56 years,

¶13

Sri Kubanna, S/o. Mallikarjun Sirasgi, Aged about 54 years,

¶14

Sri Mahesh, S/o. Mallikarjun Sirasgi, Aged about 48 years,

¶15

Sri Shashikanth, S/o. Mallikarjun Sirasgi, Aged about 46 years,

¶16

Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are: R/o. Munim Sangh, Nehru Kunj, H.No.8-1545, Kalaburgi 585 104.

¶17

Sri BASAVARAJ OGI, Age-Major, S/o. Revanasiddappa Ogi, Resident of Near Panchayat Office, Taj Sultapur, Kalaburgi 585 104.

¶18

… Respondents

¶19

Ld. Counsels on record / appeared:

¶20

For Applicant :Shri Rudrabhushan C Benekanalli For Respondent No.1 :Shri G.N. Satyamurthy For Respondent No.7 : Shri E. Devaraja

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Securitization Application ( in short “SA”) has been filed u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) to set aside the sale certificate dated 17.5.2024 executed by the 1^st respondent in favour of the Respondent No.7.

¶24

The case of the Applicant, in brief:

¶25

The applicant is the daughter of Respondent no.2 and sister of respondent 3 to 6 in whose name the property stands. The said respondents are also the partners of the firm M/s. Kaveri Industries. It is also contended that the schedule properties are joint family property owned by a joint family consisting of applicant and the above respondents. It is also contended that the Respondent in his capacity as the head of family purchased the property out of joint family property. It is also the case of the applicant, that taking benefit of the fact that the applicant is residing far away the respondents 2 to 6 without knowledge and consent of the applicant had created the mortgage in favour of the 1^st respondent.

¶26

¶27

It is also contended that, after coming to know about the measures taken by the 1^st respondent, the applicant preferred a suit as OS No.462 of 2023 before the Civil Court seeking declaration and partition and the same is pending.

¶28

On the above premise, the applicant is assailing the sale certificate. Along with the SA, the applicant had produced the following documents.

¶29

i) Copy of sale certificate dated 17.5.2024 ii) Sale notice dated 12.10.2023 iii) Copy of the Plaint in OS.462 of 2023 iv) Order sheet in OS.462 of 2023

¶30

The 1^st respondent had filed their objection refuting the

¶31

averments as made in the SA and also reiterated that they had followed the procedure in issuing the sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser. The 1^st respondent also contends that validity of the measures are already gone into in SA No.273 of 2023 and decided in favour of the Bank. Along with their objection, the 1^st respondent had produced the following documents.

¶32

a. Order in SA.273 of 2023

¶33

b. Valuation report.

¶34

¶35

The 7^th respondent had filed statement of objection denying the

¶36

so claimed right of the applicant. The 7^th respondent had also reiterated the events and the procedure followed by the 1^st respondent in their measures and also the remittance of entire sale consideration. Along with the objection the 7^th respondent had produced the following documents:

¶37

i) Sale intimation letter and online bid sheet ii) Letter by the 1^st respondent dated 4.5.2024 iii) Details of the payments iv) Sale certificate

¶38

Heard the Ld Counsel for Respective sides and considered the

¶39

contentions. The following issues arise for consideration in the light of pleadings:

¶40

a. Whether the SA challenging sale certificate is maintainable without any challenge as to the sale or sale notice?

¶41

b. What orders are to be passed.

¶42

Admittedly the right, if any of the applicant over the property is pending before the competent Civl Court and the same cannot be decided in a Section 17 application, which leaves the only question to be gone into by this Tribunal is as to the legality of measures. The

¶43

¶44

applicant is not raising any challenge as to the procedure followed by the 1^st respondent in their measures. The contention that being a party to the Civil Suit, the bank is not justified in conducting the sale cannot be accepted, as the Civil Court had not restrained the 1^st respondent from dealing with the property as a Secured Asset.

¶45

It is pertinent to note that the applicant though admits to have notice as to the issuance of sale notice had not chosen to challenge it and having allowed the sale to go through, there is clearly waiver by acquiescence from the part of the applicant.

¶46

Even otherwise what can be challenged under section 17 is the measures u/s 13(4) of the Act; which takes in also the sale. Issuance of sale certificate is not a measure u/s 13(4) of the Act. The issuance of Sale Certificate is only an administrative action from the secured creditor consequential to the sale and not a measure under 13(4) so as to be amenable u/s 17 of the Act. In the absence of any challenge as to the sale notice and the sale, the challenge as to the sale certificate alone cannot be entertained and as such this SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶47

¶48

In the result SA No.110 of 2024 is dismissed. All pending IAs

¶49

stand closed. The parties to bear their respective costs. Copy of this

¶50

order be communicated to the parties concerned.

¶51

(Dictated to my PS directly on the Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of April 2025)

¶52

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶53

Smt Siddamma v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Siddamma 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

Similar cases

Sheela Ps alias Sheela Ravi versus Federal Bank

M/s S.S Constructions Through its Proprietor Shri Sameer Sheikh Shafi Sheikh versus Capri Global Capital Limited

Sri Mahendra Pradhan And Ors. versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Sh Hem Chand versus Jogindra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Bank of India versus Ms. Bhagyesh Sale, [a Proprietorship Concern]

Canara Bank versus Sri. Lokanath Naidu.K