Dismissed

Raghavulu Bade v. Iifl Home Finance Limited

DRT9 Jun 2025SA/156/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under SARFAESI Act challenging a Sale Notice for being invalid due to lack of notices and publication. Court held the auction was never conducted, rendering the notice infructuous, and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Sale Notice is declared infructuous and proceedings are directed to conclude; however, the application under S. 17 is dismissed due to lack of merits.

Raghavulu Bade versus Iifl Home Finance Limited — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2025)

¶1

. IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE gTH DAY OF JUNE , 2C25

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No. 156./2c24

¶4

Raghavulu bade, S/o Ratnam, Aged 50 years, Occ:pvt.servicc R/Oh.No .3-39 I 1, Kanagarthi, Karimnagar-505301

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

IIFL Home Finance Ltd., Branch Office: l2-S-14, 1stfloor, Gopalnagar Near New bus stand, Opp.Indian Bank, Sircilla-S053O 1 Rep. by its Authorized officer

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Sri K.Kranthi Kumar Counsel for Respondent baruk : Sri Laruka Jagannadham

¶10

ORDER

¶11

1' This Application is filed u/s.17of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2oo2 (SARFAESI Act,2002) challenging the Sale Notice dt.23.03.2024issued by the Respondent in respect o! edule property and to declare the same as null and void. 2. The averments as follows: I,^{0gJUltmS *} The Applicant avail sing loan f; Respondent in the year 2O22and thereafter cd^ffi .rFr::h-."- ",n;is".:fi: ng the loan dues. So, the

¶12

'Respondent classified the loan account as NPA and without issuing any prior notices to the Applicant, straightaway issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.23.03.2o24 u/r 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 for conducting auction of the schedule property on 26.04.2024. The Respondent has not published the said sale notice in two leading newspapers and also not affixed the same on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶13

The Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicant after availing loan from the Respondent, failed to repay the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA on OS.O4 .2023. Accordingly, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.2o.O4.2023 demanding the Applicant and others to repay the loan amount. The said notice was received by the Applicant but he did not comply with the said notice, so, the Respondent issued possession notice dt. 1 I.OT.2O2S u/s l3(4) of the Act, 2OO2 and the said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property and it w,as also publishcd in two daily newspapers. Thereafter,he Respondent approached Ld.CJM, Sircilala for appointment of advocate commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Thereafter, the advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld.CJMtook physical possession of the schedule property on 3O.O1.2024. Thereafter the Respondent issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.23.O3.2O24 however the proposed auction was not materialized. Hence the SA becomes infructuous. Accordingly, Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶14

Heard the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent
:an terial brought on record.
"Er
&
5. points that r consideration are
3 JUil 2U5

¶15

whether the Applicant has established. ana ualid. ground"s for challenging the sate Notice dt.23,03.2024 issued bg the Respond.ent against the schedule property?

¶16

ii. To what relief ?

¶17

Point JVo.(i):-

¶18

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

¶19

The undisputed facts of thc casc are that the Applicant availed housingloan from the Respondent and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NpA.

¶20

The specific contention of the Applicant is that without issuing any demand notice, and possession notice, the Respondent straightaway issued sale notice and the said sale notice was not published in two daily newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule propert5r and so, the said sale notice is illcgal. Whcrcas thc Respondent contended that they have duly followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuingall the relevant notices to the Applicant.

¶21

their contention, the Respondent filed relevant ; ;.!

¶22

materidl . :'documentJ with the Reply filed by them. As per the said !. t the Respondent issued demand notice he SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the said

¶23

Lhcrs through Rcgd. Post and the said notice

¶24

¶25

was received by the Applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgement filed by the Respondent. In fact, the said demand notice was also published in two daily newspapers. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.1 1 .O7.2029 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others through regd. Post and the said notice was received by the Applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent.. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and Engtish daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent Bank has duly issued demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and also complied with Rule 8(1)&(2) of Secrlrity Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. So far as the impugned Sale Notice dt.23. 03.2024 is concerned, there is no dispute regarding the receipt of the said sale notice by the Applicant. In fact, along with the SA, the Applicant filed copy of the said sale notice published in Indian Express newspaper. In the Reply filed by the Respondent, it is specifically mentioned that in pursuance of the said sale notice, no auction was conductcd by the Respondent.

¶26

10' 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 dt.23.03.2024. 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 conductin 5f,h.^{schedule property by issuing fresh sale notice by} isions of SAltIlAtlSI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made

¶27

r 0gJUI|ZUS oi
s
"li
h*-
"P*f/
W

¶28

¶29

Polnt No.(it):-

¶30

In the result, SA 156/2024 is dismissed as there are no merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall

¶31

stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶32

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

¶33

(Dictatedto the P,S,-franscribed" bg her, corrected, signed and. pronounced. by me inthe open court on this the 9thdag of June, 2025),

¶34

sd/ - (c. coPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶35

ffir-e.r#s
H 0$Jljilzus :
$.u" ir ,**fl-#

¶36

TKIJE
0^g
Asst.'
o#ll'livnrit:ABAn'

Raghavulu Bade v. Iifl Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghavulu Bade v. Iifl Home Finance Limited

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

Ms Gssmr Energy Private Limited versus Union Bank of India

Sousheel versus Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Mergu Yellappa versus Punjab National Bank

Rajasekhar Kotte versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Sri Kashpe Srinivas versus Andhra Pradesh Mahesh Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Mrs Saganti Swaroopa versus Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Limited