Dismissed

Starlet Agri Science Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

DRT25 Jun 2025SA/242/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad disposed of Securitisation Application No. 242 of 2022 filed against State Bank of India challenging sale notice and possession notice. Held application infructuous as auction not conducted and possession notice challenges unsubstantiated.

What the court decided

AI extract

Starlet Agri Science Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE TWENryFIFTH DAY OF ]UNE, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAM ESHyllIgT_HF, B. Com., L. LB. (Hons. ), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION No, 242 OF 2022

¶5

M/s. Starlet Agri Sciences pvt. Ltd. Flat No.101, pegasus Block_A Block Meenakshi Sky Lounge, Hitex Khanmet, Hyderabad, R.R. Dist. Rep by its Managing Director _

¶6

Ravi^pantangi.

¶7

Ravi^pantangi

¶8

S/o Jagannadha Rao panthangi Aged about 52 years Managing Director^_ Starlet Agri Sciences pvt. Ltd. Flat No.101, pegasus Block_A Btock Meenakshi Sky Lounge, Hitex Khanmet, Hyderabad.

¶9

lailatha^{Dhulapalta,W/o Ravipantangi} Aged about 47 years, Director, Starlet Agri Sciences pvt. Ltd. Flat No.101,^pegasus Btock-A Btock Meenakshi Sky Lounge, Hitex Khanmet, Hyderabad. .... . ..Applicants.

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Bank of India, SARB-I 2nd Floor, TSRTC Bus TerminalComplex, Koti, Hyderabad-500095 Rep by its Authorised Officer.

¶12

..... .Respondent.

¶13

Counse! for the Applicants : Mr. A. Pavan Kumar Counsel for Respondent : Mr. C. Prabhakar. ffinul,e

sA.24212022

-:ORDER:-

The Applicant^{filed the presentSecuritisationApplication} uls.t7 of^{the Securitizationand Reconstructionof Financial} Assets^{and Enforcement of Security Interest Act' 2002} (hereinafter^{referred to as "SARFAESIAct 2002") assailing} sale notice^{dated 30'08'2022fixing the date of auction as} 14.lO.2022againsttheApplicationscheduleproperties'

¶18

The case^{of the applicant, in brief is that the impugnedsale} notice^{is illegal, arbitrary, violationof principlesof natural} justice and^{contraryto the mandatory provisions of the} SARFAESI^{Act and the Rules there under' The respondent} failed to^{obtain valuation report of the property from an} approved^{valuer and is trying to sell the entire lot of secured} assets^{instead of one property as the combined value of total} secured assets^{is muchmore than the outstandingdues} claimed by^{the respondent'Respondent failed to issueRule} 8(6) notice,^{publishthe sale notice' affix the sale notice u/r} 8(7) and^{publish the sale notice u/r 9(1) of the Security} Interest^{(Enforcement)Rules,2002'The respondent has not} followed^{Rules B(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest} (Enforcement)^{Rules, 2002 in serving' affixing and publishing} the^{possessionnotice. Despite the Recovery Officer' DRT-II'} Hyderabad,^{in RC'617/2020in OA 391'2019'objection and} applicant's^{consent to sell one of the properties covered under} Sale Deed^{No.3 of 2005, respondent issued impugnedsale} norice against^{all the securedastets.fr$,\v'\g}

¶19

sA.242/2022

¶20

Respondent bank filed reply statement submitting that the sale notified by the impugned sale notice has not been conducted. Accordingly, the present SA becomes infructuous to that extent. Applicant previously filed SA.346/2018 challenging the demand notice and the possession notice admitting receipt of demand notice and possession notice. The SA.346/2018 ended in dismissal by order dated 23.07.2019 and the same has not been challenged by the applicant. Therefore, applicant is stopped from raising same issues in the present SA. The possession notice dated 2t.07.20t8 sent by registered post has been returned undelivered. The possession notice was affixed on secured properties and published in two newspapers, proof of which is annexed to the reply statement. Respondent obtained decree in OA 391/2019 filed against the applicants. The applicant has not given consent to sell property covered under Sale Deed No.3 of 2005. In fact, respondent has no objection to proceed against the said property if such consent exists. Hence it is not correct to say that applicants gave consent for sale of property covered in Sale Deed No.3 of 2005.

¶21

Applicants right to advance arguments was forfeited by docket order dated 08.04.2025. Heard learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the material brought on record.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as the auction notified vide impugned sale notice dated having not been conducted the SA became infructuous.^{Learnedcounsel} would further submit that in so far as the other allegationsⁱⁿ OW""

¶23

sA.24212022

¶24

respect of demand notice and^{possessionnotice are} concerned, the said^{issues were already subiect matterof} previous SA No. 34612018 which ended in dismissal^{vide order} dated 23.07.2019. Hence,^{learned counsel pleaded that the} same issues cannot be raised^{in the present SA. It is the} further submission of the^{learned counselthat the proof of} service of^possession notice dated^{21.07.20L8, its affixture} and^publication in newspapers^{has beenfiled along with the} reply statement. Hence, the allegation of^{violation of} provisions of Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and the^Rules there under is not correct. With^{these submissions, learned} counsel^prayed for dismissal of SA.

¶25

6. Now the^points that arise for adjudication^are:-

¶26

i) lyhether the Applicants made out any valid ground for quushing^the securitisation proceedinp;s againsl the schedule proPertY under^the provisions of Securitisation Act?

¶27

iil To what relief?

¶28

Point No, (i):

¶29

The auction sale under challenge in the^{present SA was not} conducted. Hence, the allegations^{pertainingto impugned sale} proceedings are not taken into consideration for adjudication of the case.

¶30

B. As regards the alleged contraventions in the^{issuance of} possession notice dated 2I.07.2018, respondent bank^placed on record^photostat copies of^{possession notice,its publication} in Hans India and Namasthe Telangana- dailies^dated OY"t

¶31

sA.242/2022

¶32

26.07.20L8 vide material papers at pages 16 to 3O annexed to the reply statement. The possession Notice dated 21.07.2018 was issued against six properties. Respondent bank placed one photograph evidencing affixture of possession notice on the secured asset. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent has violated Rule g(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. In fact, applicant,s counsel has not taken part either in advancing oral arguments or to file written arguments disputing the authenticity of material papers filed wlth the respondent bank. Therefore, the applicants failed to make out any valid ground to interdict the securitisation measures taken by the respondent bank against the secured assets. As the impugned auction sale proceedings under challenge have not fructified, the present SA becomes infructuous on that count.

¶33