Dismissed

Mrs Balne Manjula v. Bank of India

DRT9 Jan 2025SA/150/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging an auction sale notice under the SARFAESI Act 2002. The Tribunal held that the bank followed due procedure in issuing demand, possession, and sale notices. Since the proposed auction was not conducted due to a stay order, the challenge was declared infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; Respondent Bank at liberty to conduct auction afresh following due procedure.

Mrs Balne Manjula versus Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE^gTH DAY OF JANUARY,2C25

¶2

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No. 15c/2022

¶4

Mrs.BalneManjula, W/o B.Sathyanarayana, Aged 42 years, R/o H.No.1- 16, Siddhapuram, Hasanpathy Mandal, Warangal-506006

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

1.The Authorized officer Bank of India, 10- 1 - | 199 I 2, PTI building, 2"d floor, A C Guards, Hyderabad-S0O 004

¶7

Bank of India, Pragati Industrial Estate Branch, Rep. by its Chief Manager, I l-5-248 I 249, Christian Colony, Narasampet Road, Warangal-5O6 O 13.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant Sri Abhay Singh

¶10

Counsel for the Responderuts Si K.V.Nageswara Rao

¶11

-. _QRLER:

¶12

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s. lr of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2, challenging the Auction Sale Noti ce dt.24 .os.2022 issued by the lstRespondent against the schedulc property and to declare the same as illegal.

¶13

The a tion, in brief, are that:
*
lilrt

¶14

The Applicant is the proprietor of Bommarillu Family Restaurant and availed credit facilities from the Respondent No.2 bank and deposited title deeds in respect of the schedule property. Due to lock down imposed by the central Government, the Applicant sustained loss in the business. But the 1st Respondent without considering the said fact, issued Auction Sale Notice dt.24.os.2o22 fixing the date of auction on 27.06.2022. The reserve price fixed by the Respondents is less than the market value of the schedule property. The Respondent Bankhas not issued possession notice and sale notice and thc said notices are not published in two daily newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶15

The Respondents filed their Reply Statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA. It is contended that in view of the default committed by the Applicant in repayment of outstanding dues, the loan account was classified as NpA and a demand notice dt.l7.o4.2o2L u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 was issued to the Applicant and the said notice was received by the Applicant and she did not raise any objections to the said notice. so, the l"tRespondent issued possession notice dt.2o.12.2021 to the Applicant and the said noticewas published in Hans India and velugu daily newspapers on 24.12.202r and also affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter the lstRespondent issued Auction sale Notice dt.24.o5.2022 for conductingauction of the scheduleproperty and the said notice was published in two leading newspapers viz. The HinduAnd AndhraJyoti on 26.os.2022. challenging the said notice, the Applicant filed the present SA and obtained interim stay order subject to deposit of Rs.S lakhs in two instalments and she paid the e auctionas proposed was not conducted by the -r/., Bedpt there are no merits in the SA. Accordingly, :." +5U to dismiss the SA.

¶16

CI g jAli
'025
tF- .r

¶17

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

¶18

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶19

t) whether the Appricant estabrished. ana uatid ground. for challenging the Auction sale Notice d.t.24.0s.2022 issued. by the 7"t Respondent in respect of the schedule propertg?

¶20

ii) To what relieJ?

¶21

Point No.(i):-

¶22

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

¶23

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed credit facilities from the 2"dRespondent and thereafter committed default in repayment of loan amounts. There is also nodispute regarding the fact that the Applicant deposited title deeds in respect of the schedule property with an intention to create mortgage in respect of the schedule property.

¶24

The specific contention of the Appticant is that the l"t Respondent has not followed the procedure as laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing demand notice, possession notice and Auction Sale Notice. per contra, the Respondent nded that they have followed the due provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and proced *t .acle uing all the relevant notices to the * 0^g JA}| 2$25 h{ ,'"

¶25

9 ' The Respondent Bank in order to substantiate their contention, enclosed relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the material documents, it is clear that the 1st Respondent issued Demand Notice on 17.o4.2o21 to the Applicant and the said notice was received by her as evidenced by her signature on the office copy of the said notice.. Thereafter the l"tRespondent issued Possession notice dt.2o. r2.2o21 to the Appricant and the said notice was received by the Applicant as evidenced by her signature on the copy of the said possession notice. The said notice was pubiished in two daily newspapers on 24.12.2021 as evidenced by the copies of paper publication and it was arso affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Respondents. In fact, the Auction sale Notice dt.24.os.2o22 was admittedly received by the Applicant. The Respondent Bank filed copies of paper publication showing the publication of the sale notice in two daily newspapers and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Bank. The Applicant has specifically challenged the Auction Sale Notice dt.24-O5.2022 issued by the 1"t Respondent in respect of the schedure property for conducting auction but the auction which was proposed to be conducted on 27.06.2022 was not materialized in view of the stay granted by this Tribunal. In the above circumstances, it is clear that the Respondent Bank issued demand notice, possession notice and sale notice as per the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules, made thereunder and there are no violations.

¶26

Si"9,KnSalenoticedt.24.o5.2o22whichisinchallengein .Ft.@os$K"mes infructuous as no auction was cond;.; ;; .,!yft"ffi"f^{;&Ntnotice,the Appricantis not entitledfor any} ',. ".-irelief. ^ R."$o$ddAil n n,tnrt!ilt(-^{fficordinsi-v*\r,i"} flW5r. ",1f, ^ Hgri.,st iB^point the Appricant.^isanswered So farⁱⁿ as demand^{favour of} notice^the e _*il,#ti

¶27

and possession notice issued by the lst Respondent are concerned, they are legal and valid.

¶28

Point No.(iil:-

¶29

In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed as there are no merits. The Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed afresh for conducting auction of the schedule property by following the procedure as laid down under the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder.

¶30

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶31

t2. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶32

(Dctated to the P.S transcribed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the gh dag of January,2O25).

¶33

sd/(G. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶34

{$.
t. !
0 I JAt{ 2$25

Mrs Balne Manjula v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Balne Manjula v. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/S. R.P. Industry

Arekatike Narsamma Arekatike Ashok versus Aptus Value Housing Finance India Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sri Shaik Ibrahim

Indian Bank versus Mr. Jakkula Amarender

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Ragula Kavitha

Smt M Sarada Devi versus State Bank of India