Dismissed

Ms Alex Logistics v. Punjab National Bank

DRT14 Aug 2025SA/149/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An applicant sought to quash an auction sale notice issued under the SARFAESI Act, alleging improper service and publication. The tribunal held that the notice became infructuous as no auction was conducted, dismissing the application as it had no surviving merits.

What did the court decide?

The sale notice is held infructuous; SA dismissed; Respondent directed to issue fresh sale notice following SARFAESI provisions.

Ms Alex Logistics versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THISTHE¹ 4IH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.149/2024

¶5

M/s Alex Logistics, Rep. by Sri SangalBabu, S/o late Sundharaiah Aged 52 yeas, Occ:business, R/o H.No.55-2-473 &, 55-2-473 / A, Bheemaram village, Hasanpanthy Mandal, Warangal City and District(Urban)

¶6

. .. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Punj ab National Bank, Rep. by its Authorized officer Cirfcie SASTRA, Second floor, Maharshi House, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34

¶9

... Respondent Bank

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Sri D. Raghauulu Counsel for Respondent bonk Si V.Raghu

¶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,2OO2l challenging the e Auction Sale Notice dt.26.O3.2}24issued by the Respondent Bankfor conducting auction of the schedule property ort 29.04.2024 and to declare the same as nul1

¶13

the Applicant in brief are as follows:Applicant in brief are as follows:brief are as follows:are as follows:as follows:follows:

¶14

I IlC i:t the Applicant in brief are as follows:Applicant in brief are as follows:brief are as follows:are as follows:as follows:follows: '/r# nppii loan of Rs.25 lakhs in the year 2Oi8 : rt for,, li,i R6d0[u.,rt by creating mortgage in respect of the ule property. Covid-19, the Applicant could not repay the 3F

¶15

wss,ry

¶16

loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA by the Respondent bank. The Respondent is trying to take physical possession of the schedule property by virtue of the possession notice dt.O2.ll.2O2l and the said possession notice was not served on the Applicant and it was not published in daily newspapers and the same was also not affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter, the Respondent bank issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.26.O3.2O24 for conducting auction of the schedule property on 29.04.2024 and the said notice was not affixed on the schedule property and it was not published in two leading newspapers.. Hence the SA.

¶17

The Respondent Bank Iiled their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that in view of the default committed by the Applicant in repaying the loan dues, the loan account was classified as NPA. Accordingly, the Respondent issued demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and challenging the said impugned possession notice dt.02.1 1.2021, the Applicant herein filed SA 14112021 and the same was dismissed by this Tribunal and so, the present SA is barred by the principles of Res-judicata. Thereafter, the Respondent issued the impugned e Auction Sale Notice dt.26.O3.2O24 and the same was served on the Applicant and it was affixed on the schedule property and the said notice was also published in two daily newspapers as contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder. Auction in pursuance of the said impugned said sale notice was failed and later the bank issued fresh Sale Notice dt. 10.O4.2024 but the same was not challenged by the Applicant. Accordingly, Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶18

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent the material brought on record.

¶19

arise for consideration are

¶20

d\I tl)hbthe-rl\ 'Applicant has established ang ualid grounds for Auction Sale Notice dt.26.03.2024 issued bg the the schedule property?

¶21

ii. To what relief ?

¶22

Point JVo.(if :-

¶23

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶24

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent Bank by creating mortgage against the schedule property and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA.

¶25

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Applicant has not received demand notice, possession notice and also sale notice and the said sale notice dt.26.03.2024 was not affixed on the schedule property and also not published in two daily newspapers and so, the said sale notice is illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶26

Per contra, the Respondent bank contended that on earlier occasion, the Applicant filed SA l4l I 2I challenging the demand notice and possession notice issued by the Respondent Bank and the said SA was dismissed by this Tribunal and so far as the impugned Auction Sale Notice dt.26.O3.2O24 is concerned, no auction was conducted in pursuance of the said sale notice and so, the said sale notice becomes infructuous.

¶27

In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent Bank filed relevant material documents along with the Reply fi1ed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that on earlier occasion, the Applicant Iiled SA 14ll2L on the file of this Tribunal challenging the possession 21 and e Auction Sale Notice dt.18.O5.2O22 issued by and after elaborate enquiry, the said SA was

¶28

rtsdismi vide o dt. 16. 11.2023 holding that the Respondent Bank tice dt.2o .O5.2021 and possession notice

¶29

J H^dt.02.1 :".1:"t',ryfrr::^t.2o2t said notices are duly received by the Applicant. .d- .o the Applicant cannot re-agitate about the non-

¶30

receipt of demand notice and possession notice as the same is barred by the principles of Res-judicata. So far as the impugned Sale Notice dt.26.O3.2024 is concerned, the Respondent Bank filed material documents for establishing that the said notice was served on the Applicant. In fact, the said sale notice was published in English and Telugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Bank and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copy of photograph filed by the Bank.However, in pursuance of the said sale notice, no auction was conducted by the Respondent Bank,

¶31

¶32

So in the circumstances, the impugned sale notice becomes infructuous and nothing survives in the SA for adjudication as there is no need to decide the validity or otherwise of the impugned Sale Notice d,t.26.O3.2024. Hence, I am of the opinion that the relief claimed by the Applicant in the present SA becomes infructuous and the SA is liable to be dismissed. The Respondent is directed to proceed afresh for conducting sale of the schedule property by issuing fresh sale notice by duly following the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder.

¶33

Point No.(tl):-

¶34

In the result, SA 149 124 is dismissed as there are no merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶35

l2.Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dictated b tle P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected., signed. and pronounced bg me in tle open court on this the l4thdaA of August, 2025).

¶37

sd/-
(G. GOPr CHANDI
PRESIDING OFFICER
TRUE, COPY
*.
,**,- 1"1] t9

Ms Alex Logistics v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Alex Logistics v. Punjab National 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sharvani Industries

State Bank of India versus Sri Bolla Ramana Reddy

M/S. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation versus M/S. Jgb Enterprises

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Malothu Mamatha

Chandrasekhara Oil Industries versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Smt. Chittimelli Bharathi