The Debt Recovery Tribunal set aside an auction held on 28.07.2022 because the bank failed to observe the 30-day gap between the publication of the sale notice and the auction, violating the mandatory 13(8) safeguard and Rule 8(6).
Securitisation Application No. 169 of 2022 was allowed setting aside the auction held on 28.07.2022.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL_ II AT HYDERABAD
DATEDTHIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY ' 2025
PRESENT:SH' RAMESHWARKOTHE' B 9-oI'' L'LB' (Hons')' M'A' PRESIDINGOFFICER
SECURITISATIONAPPLICATIONNo' 169 OF 2022
"""'APPlicants'
VersuS
M/s. Bank ofBaroda DommaigudaBranch Rep by its AuthorisedOfficer Plot No. 92, AYYaPPaColonY Opp: Bus Stand,Medchal- Malkajgiri, RangaReddyDist. TS - ioo oB3.
"'ResPondent'
Counsel for theApplicants: Mr. Shravan Kumar Ragi' Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. P. V. Satyanarayana' Artw,-.,r^ ,/ ,/ <sup>.-/. sY>' $" ,/
sa t69/2O22
2
-:ORDER:-
2ftv<-,a (9/'*r-
)
sA L69 12022
of thesecured asset throughAdvocate Commissionervide Notice dated09.06.2023'
3.The respondentfiled reply statement on 28'70'2022' Respondentbank deniedviolation of provisions of Sections13(2) and13(4) of the SARFAESI Act' Respondent bank filed Photostat copiesof materialpapers on 28'102022 evidencing issuanceof demandnotice dated 16'03 '2022' postal registrationreceipts' publicationin two leadingnewspaperson 31'03'2022'possession notice dated04'06'2022' affixtureon mortgaged asset' sale notice dated21.06.2022, postal registrationreceipts' affixtureon mortgagedproperty and publlcationin two newspapers'
'5. Now thepoints that arise for adjudicationare: -
(i) Whetherthe Applicantmade out any valid ground firquas'ningthe not.ice of sale u/r 8(6) issued iv ineresbonaentbank against the SA- schedute'ptroperty' under the provisionsof SecuritisationAct?
(ii) To what relief?
Point No.(il:
4
sA 169/2022
came up on 19.09.2022 and posted to 28, counter/reply. Respondent filed *"r,r r::ffit::.:ffi:: memo for counter in IA.S76/2022 and the matter was adjourned to 23.1L2022 for arguments. Thereafter, at the reguest of the applicants counsel, the matter was adjourned on various occasions and lasfly to 2t.07.2 At this stage, appticants moved three IAs on 15.06.202r. ,o.r;oI 780/2023 was for stay of physical possession of secured asset through Advocate Commissioner Notice dated 09.06.2023, rA.rTBr/2023 was for preponement of hearing scheduled for 27.07.2023 and IA.178 2/2023 was for amendment in the SA. In the counter to the stay petition No.1780/2023, respondent reported that the auction was conducte d on 28.07.2022 successfully and the sale has been confirmed.
sA L6912O22
Nav Telangana dailies on 09.06.2022.Accordingly,I find no defect on thepart of therespondent in complying the provisions of the Security Interest(Enforcement)Rules, 2002.
sA 169/2022
Point No.(ii):-
(Dictoted to the ,teno, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th doy of Februory, 2025)
,,1,,**---...tt ,', 't--r;0"-' (RAHESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant made out a valid ground for quashing the notice of sale issued by the respondent bank under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002?
To what relief the application deserves to be disposed of?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Madhavi Enterprises Rep by its Proprietor Narmula Santhosh Kumar
M/s. Bank of Baroda Dommaiguda Branch Rep by its Authorised Officer
Rameshwar Kothe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
