Ms Sri Nandini Restaurant and Bar v. Union Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal dismissed the application challenging the Auction Sale Notice dated 23.06.2023. It held that the sale notice was infructuous as no auction was conducted. Consequently, the bank was directed to conduct the auction afresh after following procedural safeguards.
What did the court decide?
Application dismissed; Bank directed to proceed afresh for conducting auction by issuing fresh sale notice duly following SARFAESI Act provisions.
What the court decided
INTHE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL* I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER
sA.No.246./2c23
M/s Sri Nandini Restaurant & Bar Rep. by its Sri M.Ravi Kumar, Aged 50 years, Occ:business, Situated at D.No.1-8-101, Street No.l0, Opp.ICICI Bank ATM, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad-S00 044.
... Applicant
Tersus
Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Rep. by its Authorized officer d. No. 2465-Beeramguda branch, Beeramguda, Sangareddy District-SO2 O32.
... Respondent Bank
Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for Respondent bank
: Sri D.Ragharrulu : Sri P. Balaji
ORDER
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Auction Sale Notice dated 23.06.2023 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was illegal for non-compliance with prior notices under Section 13(2) and Section 13(3).
Whether the Applicant could challenge the Auction Sale Notice when no auction was conducted in pursuance of the said notice.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
M/s Sri Nandini Restaurant & Bar
- respondent
Union Bank of India
Coram
GUMMADI GOPICHAND
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 · Krishna Gopal Dwivedi
- Order 2 — this page · G. Gopichand
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court