Allowed

Smt K Krishnamma v. Indian Bank

DRT7 Oct 2025SA/124/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a Securitisation Application filed by an applicant against an e-auction sale notice dated 18.02.2019. The court set aside the auction conducted on 21.03.2019, accepting contentions regarding undervaluation and collusion without requiring the respondents to rebut them as no representation was filed.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application allowed by setting aside the auction sale conducted on 21.03.2019 pursuant to the e-auction sale notice dated 18.02.2019.

Smt K Krishnamma versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE OTTH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH, RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB, (Hons.), M.A, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION No. 124 OF 2024

¶5

Smt. K. Krishnamma

¶6

Wo^{LateMun iratna} m Aged 82^years D.No.1-88, Gollachengamma Street Karvetinagaram, Chittoor District, A.P.

¶7

... .Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Zonal Ma nager Indlan Bank, Zonal Office At Tirupathl, Chittoor District, AP

¶10

The Authorized Officer Indian Bank, Zonal Office PVN Complex, Seshapeeran Street Chittoor 517001 now shifted to Tiru pati, Chittoor District

¶11

The Branch manager India n Bank, Ka rvetinagaram Chlttoor District, AP.

¶12

Sri Pannala Srinivas Prasad S/o P. Kondanda Ramamurthy Aged about 55 years Occ:Branch Ma nager, Indian Bank Ka rvetinagaram, Chittoor District, AP

¶13

Smt.M. lvlanemma, W/o lvl. Ramamurthy Aged a bout 35^years R/o Mathyavilasam Street^(V.S.S Sound and Services) Karvetinagaram, Chittoor District, AP '"':l..ti "^Respondents'

¶14

SA No.t24l2024

¶15

Counsel for the Applica nt Respondents 1to 5

¶16

:Mr. K. Kranthi Kumar

¶17

: Ex parte

¶18

-:ORDER:-

¶19

The Applicant filed the^present Securitisation^Application u/s.17^pf the Securitization and^{Reconstruction} of^{FinancialAssets} and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,^{2002 (hereinafterreferred} to as "SARFAESI Act 2002") assailing the e-auction sale^{notice dated} 18.02.2019 fixing auction on 21.03.2019 in respect of^the application schedule^property and to set aside^{the same.}

¶20

No representation for the respondents 1 to 5 despite service of notice. Accordingly, 4rh respondent was set ex^parteon 12.06.2024, 5th respondent was set ex parte on 06.09.2024 and respondent bank 1 to 3 were set ex^parte on 03.07.2025

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and^perused the record.

¶22

The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant and her son availed loan of Rs.7 lakhs for construction purpose. As additional loan was not sanctioned applicant could not complete the construction and was unable to pay the EMIS. The authorized officer issued demand notice dated 31.08.2015 u/s 13(2) tot Rs.8,22,602/- which could not be paid hence bank issued possession notice dated 13.01.2016 uls 13G) of the Act. Bank obtained valuation report dated t4.01.2076. Reserve price was kept at Rs.32.50 lakhs. 2nd respondent sent notice of intended sate on 74.17.2077 intimating proposed sale on 29,12.2017 which did not ,l/nrm,z,w / / '''\

¶23

SANo.L24l2O24

¶24

take^place. Another auction^{notice was issued on 18'02.2019fixing} auction date on 2L.03.20L9 with^{lesserreserve price of Rs.25lakhs.} After issuance of sale notice, the^{applicantpaid Rs.1.50lakhs} through NEFT and requested to settle^{the account underOTS. An} amount of Rs.5.40 lakhs was^{got transferred from her son's account} however bank adjusted only^{Rs'5.05lakhs' As on 08.01.2018the} outstanding amount was only^{Rs.1,60,230/-' Without providing} statement of account in site of^{several requests,the respondent} bank^proceeded with auction^{in favour of 5th respondentcollusively,} who is neighbour of Branch^{Manager of 3'd respondent bankand} residing opposite to schedule^{property, The 5th respondent was the} single^participant in the auction.

¶25

It is further contended^{that the respondentbank failed to} follow Secs.13(2), 13(4), 13(8)^{of the Act 2002 and Rules 8(1),} B(2), 8(5), 8(6) and 9(1) of^{2002 and bid amount was not paidas} per Rules 9(3) and 9(4) of 2002, hence^all the^{measures have to be} set aside. Learned counsel relied^{upon the judgementof Hon'ble}

¶26

others. 2012^{(1) DRTC 520 (Mad.).}

¶27

I have considered^{the submissions of the learned counsel for} the applicant. The main^{contentions are on undervaluationof the} schedule^property and^{collusivesale in favour of the auction} purchaser-sth respondent' The reserve^{price was fixed at Rs'32'50} lakhs in the^{proposed auctionon 29't2.2OL7 which was reduced to} Rs.25 lakhs in the^impugned -^{auction dated} nYnrn'1^{21.03.2019' {2As can be} u^<'\D'-

¶28

SANo.Lz+l2024

¶29

seen from the application schedule, the property is a house in 356 square yards. It is a general presumption that the land value increases but not decreases over the years. There is also a contention on outstanding amount. However, as there is no representation for the respondent bank to disprove the contentions on undervaluation, collusion and non-compliance of procedure under the provisions of the Act and Rules of 2002, the contentions remain unrebutted and unchallenged. Under such circumstances, the SA deserves to be allowed.

¶30

In the result, the present Securitization Application is allowed by setting aside the auction sale conducted on 2L.03.2019 pursuant to e-auction sale notice dated 18.02.2019.

¶31

No order as to costs. Consequenfly, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. 9. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶32

(Typed to my dictation by the ps, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the Of october, 2O2S).

¶33

/ffi**

¶34

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶35

RAMESH\AAR KOTFIE Presiding Oflicer Govt. of lndia M inistrv of F inanco DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL-2 Abids, Hyderabad-s00^0O'l

Smt K Krishnamma v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt K Krishnamma v. Indian Bank

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

Shivender Reddy Gutha versus Karvy Finance Services Ltd.

Chilamaturu Naresh Kumar versus Bajaj Housing Finance Limited

L Vamshi Krishna versus Bank of India

Sarthchandrika versus Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

Mr Abhay Kumar Patro versus LIC Housing Finance

Arram Srinivas versus Bajaj Housing Finance Limited