Application under SARFAESI Act challenged status of e-auction sale notice. Court dismissed case as infructuous due to non-conduction of auction.
Application dismissed; duty to issue fresh sale notice if auction proceeds.
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 DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER
sA.No.121./2c23
Versus
State Bank of India Rep. by its Authorized officer Stressed Asets Recovery Branch(SARB), 2ND FLOOR, TSRTC commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal Complex, Koti, Hyderabad-50O095. ... Respondent
Counsel for the : Si D.Raghanrulu Counsel for : Si P.V. Saty anarag ana Reserued oi;,'| : 16.09.2025 w * :06.11.2025 :07.11.2025 1. This Reconstruction of Financial Securit5r Interest Act,2OO2
Applicant No. 1 availed housing loan from the Respondent bank and the said loan account was closed by the Appricant No. 1 by repaying the entire dues. Thereafter, the Applicant No. I availed education loan of Rs.20 lakhs for education of the Applicant No.2 against the mortgage of schedule property. However, the Respondent Bank released only an amount of Rs.18.25 lakhs. As the Applicant No.2 was unable to get job after completing her studies, the Applicant No.1 could not repay the loan dues. All of a sudden, the Applicants were shocked to know that the Respondent Bank is trying to sell the schedule property in pursuance of the impugned sale notice dt.28.o2.2o23. without issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants and without complying with Rule g(l)(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the Respondent Bank is trying to sell the schedule property. The impugned e Auction sale notice dt.28.o2.2o23 was neither published in two reading newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property and the sarne was not served on the Applicants. Hence the SA.
respect of Education loan. Subsequently, the said loan account has been transferred from SBI, Miryalguda branch to the Respondent Bank herein on administrative reasons. Thereafter the Respondent bank issued 30 days sale notice dt.28.O2.2O23 u/r 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and the said notice was served on the Applicants and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers and affixed on the schedule property. Accordingly, the Respondent bank has duly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the statutory notices to the Applicants. The Respondent bank also Iiled O.A.L28123 before this Tribunal and the same is pending. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.
Point ^l\Io.lil:-
3
repaying the loan dues. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant No. 1 cleared the housing loan by paying the entire outstanding dues.
- But the Respondent contended that they have issued all the statutory notices to the Applicants under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder.
'. .,.1,,1,, -r.1,
-....,-,..r:'i.,,,,'
4
has complied with Rule 8(1)(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2. Thereafter, the Respondent issued e Auction SaIe Notice dt.28.O2.2O23 and sent the said notice to the Applicants through Regd.post. In fact, the Applicants filed copy of the said notice along with the SA filed by them. The impugned sale notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies ofphotographs liled by the Bank.
t2. However, during the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent and Ld. Counsel for the Applicants submitted that inpursuance of the impugned Sale Notice dt.28.O2.2O23, no auction was conductedby the Respondent against the scheduleproperty.As no auction was conducted in pursuance of the impugned sale notice dt.28.02.2o23,the relief claimed by the Applicants in the SA becomes infructuousand nothingsurvivesin the present SA for adjudication andthere is no need to decide the validity or otherwise of the impugnedsale notice. Hence, I am of the opinionthat the relief claimed by the Applicants inthe presentSA becomesinfructuous and the SA is liabte to be dismissed.Suffice, if a direction is given to the Respondent bank to issue fresh salenotice for conductingauction ofthe schedule property by strictly followingthe procedure contemplatedunder the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2and Rules made thereunder.
Point No.(il)r
(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court onthis the 6th dag of Nouember, 2025).
sdl(G. GOPI CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER
6
Sri Dabbikar Veeroji and Ors.
State Bank of India
SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
