Dismissed

Shaik Ahmed Mohiddin v. Union Bank of India

DRT26 Sept 2025SA/138/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application under Section 17 because it was filed after the auction and sale certificate were concluded. The court held the application redundant as the applicant failed to prove core defects and had previously offered to pay EMIs and withdrawn excess proceeds.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application No.138/2024 dismissed; interlocutory applications closed; no order as to costs.

Shaik Ahmed Mohiddin versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL} -^{II AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26TH^{DAYOF SEPTEMBER, 2025}

¶3

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

¶4

Securitlzation Application^{No'138OF 2024}

¶5

Shaik Ahmed Mohiddin S/o SK Mohinuddin Aged about 55^{years, Occ:Cab Driver} PJo Plot No.37, Sri^{Vijaya Enclave} Muttuguda, Bandlagud,^Nagole Hyderabad

¶6

.......Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Unlon Bank of India Alwal Branch⁽ 10832) H. No.1-6- 108/2, Bhatia^Bakery First Floor, MR^KrishnaRoad Sai Nagar, Alwal,^Secunderabad Rep by its Authorized^Officer

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant^{: Mr. T, Sridhar} Counsel for^{RespondentBank : Ms, Sangeeta laiswal}

¶11

.: O.B-D-EB:-

¶12

The Applicant filed the^{present Securitisation Applicationu/s 17} of the Securitization^{and Reconstruction of FinancialAssetsand} Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act, 2OO2(hereinafter referred to as} "the Act') to set^{aside all measures of the respondentbank against} the application^{schedulepropertyincludinge-auctionproceedings on} 28.02.2024.

¶13

The case of the^{applicant, in brief, is that he availedhousing} loan from respondent^{bank against mortgageof the application} schedule^{property. In spite of informing new address, the respondent} without issuing^{any notlces proceededto put the proqertyfor auction'}

7fu'..*:L\ I .,',

page 2 of4

sA No,138/2024

Rule 8(6) notice has not been served by giving 30 days redemption time. Applicant addressed letter dated 15,03.2024 to bank to know present status of account, but it was informed that auction had already been held on 28.02.2024 for Rs.23.11 lakhs by undervatuing the property. Even as per valuation report dated 06.03.2024 the property value is Rs.43.79 lakhs. Respondent without following provisions under Secs.13(2), 13(4), Rutes 8(5), 8(6). 8(7) and 9(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (,,Rules,, hereinafter) and proceeded to conduct the auction. Hence this SA.

¶18

The respondent bank filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that the applicant avaited loan, his wife Smt Gousia Begum is the co-applicant/borrower. Due to irregular payment account became NpA on 29.09.2022 as per RBI guidelines. The right of redemption extinguished for the applicant with publication of sale notice as per judgement of Hon,ble Supreme Court in possession notice were received by wife of applicant and also got published. Possession notice was also affixed on secured asset. Valuation report was obtained on 10.05.2023 from the approved valuer and reserve price was fixed at Rs.2g.22 lakhs followed by issuance of auction notice dated 23.09.2023 but the auction failed for want of bidders. The 2nd auction also was not successful. Finally the 3d auction was successful on 2}.OZ.2OZ4 pursuant to sale notice dated 09.02.2024. The sale notice was sent by registered post to borrowers, published in English and Telugu newspapers and got affixed on the property. The successful bidder B. Venkateshwar Rao paid entire auction amount of Rs.23.11 lakhs whereupon bank issued sale certificate on 77.03.2024. Since the applicant dlLnot provide his 'l'w24*.uk

¶19

Pate 3 of4

¶20

sA No.138/2024

¶21

Aadhaar, his address^{was not changedin records.Vide letterdated} 06.10.2023 the applicant^{undertookto pay regularEMI if his wife} would not pay and^{requestedto take possessionof the house'The} respondent bank has^{followed due procedureand henceSA is liableto} be dismissed.

¶22

Representative of^{learned counsel for the applicant as wellas} learned counsel the^{respondentreported that orders may be passed} based on records.^{Learned counsel for respondentfiled a memo} stating that the^{excesssale proceedswere remitted into the account} of applicant and^{he withdrewthe same.}

¶23

It is a matter of^{record that the stay petition filed by the} applicant was^{rejected on the ground that the SA was filed after the} auction^{proceedingsconcluded and sale certificatewas already} issued. The applicant^{has not challengedthe order'As held in the} judgment of any sale by auction once^{already conflrmed and concludedought not to} be set aside with^{lightlyexcept on grounds that go to the core of sale} proceedings. In the case on hand, auction^{was conductedon} 28.02.2024 and^{sale certificate wasissuedon 11.03'2024 whereas} the SA was filed on^{18.03.2024.The applicanthimselfgave} undertaking earlier to^{pay the EMIs and requested to takepossession} of the^property. On^{one hand, the applicant failed to prove his} contentions and^{he withdrew the excesssaleproceeds from the} account on the other^{hand. Under such circumstances,the SA has} become redundant^{and accordingly liableto be dismissed',} )*r'o 7 5/nso '