Dismissed

Klv Rama Rao v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT7 Oct 2025SA/250/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's securitization application challenging a second sale notice and auction under the SARFAESI Act. The court upheld the bank's compliance with notice periods for a second sale, rejected the claim that the land was agricultural solely based on revenue records, and affirmed the extinction of the right to redeem after auction publication.

What did the court decide?

The sale notice dated 07.03.2023, the auction on 28.03.2023, and the issuance of sale certificates are held valid. The Securitization Application is dismissed.

Klv Rama Rao versus Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 250 of 2023

¶8

K.L.V. Rama Rao, Temple Bell, Sterling Apartments, Door No.T2, No.2 & 3, South Mada Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai -600 034. ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

Indian Overseas Bank, Large Advances Branch, Plot No. PB 15, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irungattukottai, Sriperambudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶11

Indian Overseas Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, 3^rd floor, Annexe Building, No.763, Annasalai, IOB Central Office Buildings,

¶12

Chennai -600 002. ….Respondents

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R. Govindarajan Counsel for respondent : M/s. M. Mani

¶15

ORDER ON SA 250/2023

¶16

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 20.04.2023 under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short the ‘Act’) challenging the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

The applicant has filed the present SA challenging the Auction Conducted on 28.03.2023 pursuant to the Sale Notice dated 07.03.2023 and the outstanding amount due as per Sale Notice is Rs.34,74,05,615.30/-

¶21

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶22

The applicant is a well-known builder has promoted M/s. Sterling Estates and Properties Ltd., in the year 1986, for developing the property, construction of residential and commercial property and apartments for sale and commercial gain. The applicant owns a land (land admeasuring 2.80 acres) situated at S.No.55/6 of Rayavaram Village and Panchayat, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District, lands and factory of another entity, M/s. Samardha Natural Stones Pvt. Ltd., for processing the materials and manufacture of decorative tiles, wall tiles and floor tiles, wherein the Applicant is one of the Directors. The premises houses the running factory of the said company even as on date. Applicant also owns about 1.64 acres of agricultural lands situated at S.No.125/3 of Rayavaram Village and Panchyat, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶23

3.1 The applicant M/s. Sterling Estates and Properties Ltd., proposed to develop a property situated at Oragadam, Kancheepuram District in a total land of 5.4 acres for 560 residential apartments of about 4,50,000 sq.ft., to be constructed and the company were entitled for 3,15,000 square feet of constructed area as per the agreement entered between the land owners.

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

3.2 The company approached the respondent bank for a project loan which the bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.39 Crores for the construction of the apartment, but disbursed only Rs.17 crores. It is alleged that respondent bank forced the applicant to bring the assets of applicant as security and as Managing Director of the company to provide the personal guarantee. Thus, the applicant was forced to provide a guarantee for the cash credits and loan availed by M/s. Sterling Estates and properties ltd.

¶28

3.3 The applicant has deposited the title deeds of the property favoring the bank to the loan availed by M/s. Sterling Estates and properties ltd., It is alleged that the bank was not cooperating with the company and the sanctioned amount was not disbursed timely which delayed the project, however the applicant is now confident in completing the project.

¶29

3.4 The company had also approached the bank for an one-time settlement of the entire loan amount, however the account of M/s. Sterling Estates and Properties have been declared as NPA and the bank has issued the notice Under sec.13(2) and Sec.13(4). The bank had agreed to sell portion of the property to settle the liability to an identified third party purchaser who were willing to purchase the assets. But the applicant was shocked to learn from third parties that e-auction was conducted on 28.03.2023 and bank has sold the property to the third party. Hence the present SA is filed to declare that the auction sale notice dated 07.03.2023 is illegal and unlawful and also to set aside the auction conducted on 28.03.2023.

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

3.5 In the grounds, it is contented that the property belonging to the applicant comprises in Survey No.55/6 of an extent of 2.80 acres at Rayavaram Village and Panchayat, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District and 1.64 acres situated at Survey No.125/3 at Rayavaram Village and Panchayat, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District is totally vitiated and not sustainable under SARFAESI Act.

¶34

3.6 The Authorized Officer has erred in following procedures contemplated under Rule 8(5) of the security interest rules and has not served a notice of thirty days for sale of the immovable properties as the sale notice dated 07.03.2023 is dispatched on 09.03.2023 fixing the auction on 28.03.2023 which deprived the applicant from making any alternate arrangements.

¶35

3.7 The sale notice is not published as per Rule 9(1) which mandates that no sale of immovable property shall be made before the expiry of thirty days, and should have been published in the newspapers and the consequent auction of the defective notice is vitiated. The applicant after issuance of the Sec.13(2) and Sec.13(4) has taken to regularize and close the loan account by negotiation for one time settlement.

¶36

3.8 Further the property is an agricultural land which cannot be sold under the SARFAESI Act. The applicant is the Managing Director of the principal borrower is only a guarantor and an opportunity to raise money ought to have been given.

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

3.9 The bank is estopped from proceedings with the sale after concurring with the applicant for a private negotiated sale for a better price. The respondent have fixed the reserve price without giving an opportunity to put forth the applicant case. The auction sale notice and the conduct of the auction is against the principles of natural justices as no opportunity was given to the applicant to explain the reasons for nonpayment and in fact no notice was served to the applicant in the case.

¶41

3.10 On these grounds the applicant prays to squash the auction conducted on 28.03.2023 in pursuant to the sale notice dated 07.03.2023.

¶42

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶43

The respondent bank has filed the detail counter inter alia that the

¶44

applicant had not complied with the conditional order dated 02.05.2023 of this Hon’ble Tribunal, permitting him to deposit of 100% of the Reserve Price of both the items of the property mentioned in the sale notice dated 07.03.2023 to maintain the status quo. Hence, it is submitted that the Tribunal may not entertain the above application till the interim order is compiled by the applicant.

¶45

4.1 The E-Auction sale was conducted on 28.03.2023 as per the sale notice dated 07.03.2023 and Mr. Venkata Narayana Yakkali, Resident of 7-273, 7^th Ward Nehru Street, Markarpur -523316, Andhra Pradesh (Auction Purchaser) is the successful bidder who has bid the highest for Item No.1 Property for an amount of Rs.1,69,04,900/- against the

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

reserve price of Rs.1,59,04,900/- and the Item No.2 property was submitted the bid for Rs.1,69,87,000/- against the reserve price of Rs.67,87,000/-. The respondent have confirmed the e-auction sale dated 28.03.2023 as the auction purchaser has paid the full bid amount in respect of the Item No.2 property and deposited the 25% of the bid amount and sought time up to 12.06.2023 which was permitted by the respondent bank to pay the balance amount in respect of the Item No.1 Property.

¶50

4.2 The applicant is the Promoter and Managing Director of M/s Sterling Estates and Properties Ltd., and the company is engaged in the property development, construction of residential and commercial apartments for sale and commercial gain. At the request of the company the bank had sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.24.00 crores for project of construction of Residential Apartments for construction of 252 residential apartments Phase 1 at Pondur village, Sriperumbudur Taluk and a Term Loan of Rs.15.00 crores for construction of 224 residential apartments Phase II at Pondur village, Sriperumbudur Taluk.

¶51

4.3 Further the said company availed the term loan of Rs.24.00 crores on 21.01.2015 and the property is offered as collateral security which is mentioned in the sale notice dated 07.03.2023 and the applicant stood personal guarantee to the loan. However, the company did not complete the project as committed and diverted the funds availed for the project loan and also committed default in servicing the interest and term loan instalments as agreed. Hence, the account was classified as NPA on

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

30.11.2018 as per the RBI guidelines and the applicant did not regularize the loan amount and the loan account continued as overdue and irregular.

¶56

4.4 Bank has invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and issued the S.13(2) demand notice on 01.12.2018 under section 13(2) of the Act, to the Borrowers/Mortgagors/Guarantors. However, some of the mortgagors/guarantors have sent their objection on 19.01.2019 to the demand notice to which the bank has also sent their reply on 30.01.2019. In spite of receipt of the S.13(2) demand notice and their reply, the applicant did not repay the amount within the statutory period. Hence, the bank have issued the S.13(4) possession notice on 04.02.2020 and took symbolic possession of the property including has mentioned in the sale notice.

¶57

4.5 The possession notice dated 04.02.2020 was acknowledged by all the Borrowers/Mortgagers/Guarantors including the applicant herein. However, did not challenged the said possession notice dated 04.02.2020 and the same is barred by limitation to raise any infirmities regarding the possession notice dated 04.02.2020. The bank has also filed the Original applicant for a recovery a sum of Rs.23,23,38,919/- and the same is pending before this Hon’ble Tribunal vide T.A. No.1228/2023.

¶58

4.6 As the borrowers/guarantors/mortgagors did not liquated the liability bank has issued the sale notice dated 25.02.2020 that is the first sale notice bringing the property to sale to which and same sale notice is not challenged by the borrower/mortgagors/guarantors. However, the

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

proposed sale did not take place. The first sale notice dated 25.02.2020 was received and acknowledged by the applicant and the borrower, which was also published in the newspaper on 27.02.2020 in Prajasakti (Telugu-Ongole Edition) and New Indian Express (Vijaywada Edition) as the secured assets mentioned in the impugned sale notice situated in Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh and also in Chennai Edition Indian Express and Dinamani on 27.02.2020.

¶63

4.7 Hence, the bank have issued the second sale notice dated 07.03.2023 scheduling the property to be sold on 28.03.2023 which is challenged by the applicant in the present SA. The second sale notice dated 07.03.2023 is also acknowledged by the borrowers/mortgagors/guarantors including the applicant herein on 10.03.2023, the sale notice is affixed on the property on 10.03.2023, published in the newspaper on 09.03.2023 in Andhra Prabha (TeluguPrakasam District Edition) and Times of India (Vijaywada Edition) as secured assets mentioned in the impugned sale notice situated in Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh and also in Chennai Edition of Indian Express and Dinakaran on 09.03.2023.The respondent bank have obtained the valuation report from the secured asset before bringing the property to sale.

¶64

4.8 The secured assets mentioned in the impugned sale notice viz.2.80 acres, comprised in S.No.55/6 at Rayavaram village and panchayat, forming part of acres 6 and 80 cents comprised in S.No.55/4, 55/6 and 55/7 of Rayavaram village, a factory land, owned by the applicant in the

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

name of M/s. Samardha Natural Stones (P) ltd., situated at welldeveloped Markapur Industrial Estate and not an agricultural land.

¶69

4.9 The extent of the land measuring 1 acre 64 cents comprised in S.No.125/3 at Rayavaram village, the south Boundary of the said extent is abutting to the Ongole to Markapur Main Road, comes under, Developed Residential area and not used for agricultural purpose and no agricultural activities for more than 10 years and the owner of the said land is not deriving any agricultural income out of the said lands and the applicant himself a stated under grounds of appeal 7.K, that he has taken up land reclamation, developing and levelling huge cost for making it commercially viable which proves that the said lands, are not used agricultural land and meant for commercial purpose.

¶70

4.10 The credit sanction advice dated 01.10.2014 by the Respondent Bank acknowledged by the applicant herein clearly mention in page 6, that the said lands are factory land and building (land measuring 6.69 Acres) situated at S.Nos.55/4, 6 & 7 of Rayavaram Village and Panchayat and vacant lands measuring 1 Acre 64 Cents at 125/3, Rayavaram Village and no were it was mentioned as agricultural land.

¶71

4.11 Now the applicant is estopped in claiming the said lands are agricultural. The documents submitted by the Applicant along with the application in page 27 & 28 do not evidence that the said lands are agricultural lands and only mention the classification as Dry lands. Hence the averments are false, and factually incorrect. Hence the SARFAESI

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

actions initiated by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act against the said properties are sustainable and not vitiated under any provisions of any law.

¶76

4.12 The authorized officer has fixed the reserve price after obtaining the valuation report as contemplated with rule 8(5) of the SARFAESI Act. The impugned sale notice dated 07.03.2023 is the second sale notice and, hence there is 15 days clear notice of the sale.

¶77

4.13 The applicant is a guarantor and Managing Director of the Borrower company, hence his liability of the guarantor is co-extensive that of the borrower and even, in spite of receipt of the S.13(2) demand notice there was no response. Hence the bank has filed an original application in TA.No.1228/2023. Thus the applicant herein cannot relinquish his liabilities as a Guarantor.

¶78

4.14 The bank denies that the Managing Director was forced to be the guarantor under influence and coercion. The minutes of the board of Directors of M/s Samardha Natural Stones Pvt Ltd., had authorized the applicant herein to execute the MODT and offer the corporate guarantee and the company’s property as a collateral security. Hence the contention raised by the applicant is an afterthought to avoid his liability towards the respondent.

¶79

4.15 The bank have followed all the measures and have produced the documents in support of the measures taken and, hence prays for the dismissal of the SA.

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of the

¶84

case

¶85

It is manifest from the records that M/s Sterling Estates and Properties Ltd., represented by its Managing Director Shri. KLV Rama Rao, is the borrower who has availed the credit facility from the respondent bank.

¶86

5.1 It seen from the S.13(2) demand notice that the applicant herein is the mortgagor cum guarantor, and Smt. Vijaya K, is the guarantor, Shri. Nallamalli Babu Prasad, deceased is represented by the legal heirs who is the mortgagor cum guarantor and M/s. Samardha Natural Stones Pvt ltd., represented by its Managing Director Shri. KLV Rama Rao is the mortgagor cum guarantor and Smt. Hymavathy P (Represented by General Power Agent M/s Sterling Estates and Properties Ltd.,) is the mortgagor, and Smt. Swarnalatha T (Represented by General Power Agent M/s Sterling Estates and Properties Ltd.,) is the mortgagor and Shri. Vidyadhar A (Represented by General Power Agent M/s Sterling Estates and Properties Ltd.,) is the Mortgagor and Shri. Sreedhar Reddy K (Represented by General Power Agent M/s Sterling Estates and Properties Ltd.,) is the mortgagor and Smt. Prabhavathy P (Represented by General Power Agent M/s Sterling Estates and Properties Ltd.,) is the mortgagor and Shri. Gopalakrishna Reddy (Represented by General Power Agent M/s Sterling Estates and Properties Ltd.,) is the mortgagor and Shri Subba Reddy AV (Represented by General Power Agent M/s Sterling Estates and Properties Ltd.,) is the mortgagor.

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

5.2 It seen from the demand notice that the applicant had availed a Term loan of Rs.24 Crores and had executed all the loan documents agreeing to repay the loan along with the agreed rate of interest. It seen that the applicant had mortgaged four properties as security towards the credit facilities availed.

¶91

5.3 Due to default in the repayment the bank has classified the account as NPA and subsequent to the classification of NPA the bank have initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act. Records reflects that the S.13(2) demand notice clearly describes the name of the borrowers, the guarantors and the mortgagers, nature of the facility availed and the mortgage of the properties as collateral security towards the credit facilities. The Sec.13(2) demand notice clearly highlights the total outstanding due to be paid within the period of 60 days. Thus the details as description of the Sec.13(2) demand notice is in compliance of the as mandated under the Act.

¶92

5.4 The S.13(2) demand notice is sent by RPAD as per postal receipts produced by the bank at Pg.30 and 31. The notices to the borrowers and to the guarantors has been received as per the postal acknowledgement cards produced from pg.32-35. It seen that the mortgagor P. Hymavathy, T. SwarnaLatha raised objections S. 13(2) demand notice to which the bank has replied vide replied letter dated 19.01.2019.

¶93

5.5 Thus the respondent bank have complied with the procedures in

¶94

issuance of the Sec.13(2) demand notice and also in replying to the

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

objections raised by the mortgagors under S.13(3A). Further it is also seen that the objections to demand notice is raised by Subba Reddy A.V., A. Vidyadhar, K. Gopalakrishna Reddy and K. Sreedhar Reddy, to which the bank has also given a reply.

¶99

5.6 Though the applicant had raised their objections to the S.13(2) demand notice, did not liquidated the entire liability within 60 days as mandated under the Act.

¶100

5.7 Hence, the bank has proceeded for the in issuing the S.13[4] possession notice dated 04.02.2020 which is received by the applicants herein, affixed on the property on 04.02.2020 and published in English (New Indian Express, Vijaywada Edition and Vernacular (Prajasakthi, Telugu Ongole Edition) dated 08.02.2020. Thus the bank have followed the compliances as required under the Act.

¶101

5.8 However, the borrower/mortgagor/guarantor in receipt of the S.13(4) possession notice have not chosen to challenge within the period of 45 days, and now cannot content any allegations in respect of S.13(4), even otherwise the bank have established the due compliance in issuing the S.13(4) possession notice and have established the measure in accordance with law.

¶102

5.9 It seen that the sale notice dated 07.03.2023 is impugned in the present SA the contention that there is no 30 days’ notice could not sustain as it is the second sale notice and 15 of days’ notice is required to proceed further. The bank have issued Second sale notice dated

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

07.03.2023 and have produced the postal acknowledgement cards for having received the sale notice as per documents at pg.129 to 142, the sale notice is also affixed on the property and the photograph of the notice is produced at pg.143 and 144, which is affixed on 10.03.2023.

¶107

5.10 Further the paper publication is also effected in English (Times of India, Vijayawada Edition) and English (New Indian Express, Chennai Edition) and Vernacular (Andraprabha, Telugu Prakasam District Edition) and Vernacular (Dinakaran, Tamil Chennai Edition) dated 09.03.2023.

¶108

5.11 Thus the applicant had thorough knowledge of the second sale notice dated 07.03.2023 and the paper publication is on 09.03.2023. Hence the applicant cannot contend that there is no 30 days’ notice before effecting the sale.

¶109

5.12 It seen from the records that the respondent bank have obtained the valuation report from their approved valuer on 30.10.2022 before putting the property to auction and the valuation is produced at pg.149165.

¶110

5.13 Though the applicant taken contentions with regard to first sale notice dated 25.02.2020 and the bank have produced the paper publication and the affixture of the 1^st sale notice, the same is not being adjudicated as the respondent bank have issued the second sale notice dated 07.03.2023 which is the subject matter of the SA.

¶111

5.14 It is matter of fact and record that there is no dispute with regard to the availing of the credit facilities and the mortgage of the property as

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

collateral security. Though the applicant have raised the contention that the property is an agricultural land, have not produced any document to content that there are agricultural activity which is going on the property. But applicant have produced the patta dated 17.04.2021 on pg.26A-27 and Adangal dated 17.04.2021 on pg.28A-29.

¶116

5.15 It seen from the land owner ship rights and Form 1D that the classification of land is dry land as is evident that there are no agricultural activity going on and the very nature of the land is a dry land where no cultivation can be carried out. Further from the patta also reflects that the land in dry land.

¶117

5.16 It is very apt to mention that the applicant places reliance on the Andangal to support his case that the land is an agricultural land and the English translated copy of Andangal is produced. The Andangal reveals that it is a type of land record maintained by the Village Administrate Officer recording the details of the nature of land, its assessment, details of survey number but there are no details of maize cultivated or recorded in the documents as contended by the application.

¶118

5.17 Except for production of Andangal, the applicant has not produced any documents in support of his contention that the property is an agricultural land which is exempted under SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal places reliance of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Blue Coast Hotels Limited and Others and K. Pappireddiyar and Another , where it is held that merely revenue records reflects that secured properties are

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

shown as agricultural land is not sufficient to attract Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶123

5.18 In the instant matter the applicant has failed to show that the property is actually being used as agricultural land at the time when the security interest was created and agricultural activates are being carried on even now. There is no scrap of documents produced by the applicant to show that the secured asset is put to use for agricultural purposes and there is agricultural activity going on the secured asset to avail the benefit/exempt under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act. It further held that since no security interest can be created in respect of agricultural lands and yet it was so created, goes to show that the parties did not treat the land as agricultural land and that the debtor offered the land as security on this basis.

¶124

5.19 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled K . SREEDHAR v. M/S RAUS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. & ORS. has held that the burden is upon the borrower to prove that the secured properties were agricultural lands and actually being used as agricultural lands and/or agricultural activities were going on.

¶125

5.20 Thus it can be seen that the property is described as vacant land measuring 1.64 acres situated at S.No.125/3 of Rayavaram. Rayavaram Village & Panchayat, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam district in the name of Mr. KLV Rama Rao lying within the Registration District of Prakasam and sub Registration District of Podili and the same is not an agricultural land as contented by the applicant herein.

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

5.21 Further is also seen that from the sale notice that the other properties that the Item No.1 property is a factory land building total measuring 6.69 acres and is factory land and building. Thought the applicant has challenged the second sale notice dated 07.03.2023, has not made out any case of illegality or violation in the issuance of the sale notice, conducting the auction or in the auction proceedings resulting in a successful building in favor of who is the auction purchaser Mr. Venkata Narayana Yakkali.

¶130

5.22 It is submitted by the bank that the auction purchaser had paid the entire sale consideration for the Item No.2 Property, however sort time to pay the balance sale consideration for Item No.1 Property which was extended by the secured creditor. On completed payment of the entire sale consideration the respondent bank as secured creditor have issued the sale certificate favoring the auction purchaser Mr. Venkata Narayana Yakkali.

¶131

5.23 It is pertinent to mention that the Applicant had lost their right of redemption as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled “Celir LLP versus Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd.” considered the right of redemption under S.13[8] after the amendment has held that borrower's right of redemption of mortgage under the SARFAESI Act will get extinguished once the bank publishes an auction notice for the sale of the secured asset and further held that the failure on the part of the borrower in tendering the entire dues before the publication of the auction notice as

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

per Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act constituted an "extinguishment of right of redemption of mortgage.

¶136

5.24 The Tribunal places reliance on the Order of the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai in RASA 186/2018 dated 22.08.2022 wherein it is categorically held the sale certificate alone cannot be challenged as sale certificate is not a measure and it is only consequential measure after the properties sold. Thus, it is evident that the applicant has not made out a case for interfere with the sale notice dated 07.03.2023, on the other hand the respondent bank have established the due compliance measures taken and the Sale Certificate is also issued. The applicant having lost right of the redemption have frustrated the matter without any bonafides which is highly depreciated.

¶137

5.25 Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes the measure taken by the respondent bank in issuance of Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 01.12.2018 and Section 13(4) Possession notice dated 04.02.2020 are held as valid notices and the sale notice dated 07.03.2023; sale held on 28.03.2023 and Sale Certificates in respect of the item 1 and 2 property dated 01.07.2023 and 28.06.2023 respectively and the Sale Certificate was registered in respect of the 2^nd item of the property on 03.08.2023 issued favoring auction purchaser are in accordance with the procedures as required under the Act and Rules made thereunder and same are held as valid measures.

¶138

5.26 For the foregoing reasons, the present SA stands dismissed.

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed

¶143

of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost

¶144

Sd/-

¶145

(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶146

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 07^th day of October, 2025)

¶147

ANNEXURES

¶148

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶149

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Auction Notice issued to the Applicant dated 07.03.2022.	A-1
2.	Translated copy of Patta.	A-2
3.	Patta dated 17.04.2021.	A-3
4.	Translated copy of Adangal dated 17.04.2021.	A-4
5.	Adangal dated 17.04.2021.	A-5

¶150

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶151

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Credit Sanction Advice by the Respondent Bank acknowledged by the applicant dated 01.10.2014.	R-1
2.	Board Resolution by the applicant company dated 05.12.2014.	R-2
3.	Regd Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds executed by the Applicant to and in favour of the Respondent vide Doc.No.318 of 2015 on the file of SRO, Podili dated 20.01.2015.	R-3
4.	Demand Notice U/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Proof of Service dated 01.12.2018.	R-4
5.	Objection to Demand Notice U/s 13(3A) SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 19.01.2019.	R-5
6.	Reply by the Respondent to objection dated 19.01.2019 dated 30.01.2019.	R-6
7.	Possession Notice and Proof of Service dated 04.02.2020.	R-7
8.	Proof of Affixture of Possession Notice date 04.02.2020.	R-8
9.	Proof of Paper Publication of Possession Notice	R-9

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

	dated 04.02.2020 –English (New Indian Express, Vijaywada Edition) dated 08.02.2020.
10.	Proof of Paper publication of Possession Notice dated 04.02.2020-Vernacular (Prajasakthi, Telugu Ongole Edition) dated 08.02.2020.	R-10
11.	1^stSale Notice and Proof of Service dated 25.02.2020.	R-11
12.	Corrigendum to 1^st Sale Notice dated 25.02.2020 and Proof of Service dated 26.02.2020.	R-12
13.	Proof of Paper Publication of 1^stSale Notice dated 25.02.2020 – English (New Indian Express, Vijawada Edition) dated 27.02.2020.	R-13
14.	Proof of Paper Publication of 1^stSale Notice dated 25.02.2020 – English (New Indian Express, Chennai Edition) dated 27.02.2020.	R-14
15.	Proof of Paper Publication of 1^stSale Notice dated 25.02.2020 – Vernacular (Prajasakthi, Telugu Ongole Edition) dated 27.02.2020.	R-15
16.	Proof of Paper Publication of 1^stSale Notice dated 25.02.2020 – Vernacular (Dinamani, Tamil Chennai Edition) dated 27.02.2020.	R-16
17.	2^ndSale Notice (impugned) and Proof of Service dated 07.03.2023.	R-17
18.	Proof of Affixture of 2^ndSale Notice dated 07.03.2023 (impugned) dated 10.03.2023.	R-18
19.	Proof of Paper publication of 2^ndSale Notice dated 07.03.2023 (impugned) –English (Times of India, Vijaywada Edition) dated 09.03.2023.	R-19
20.	Proof of Paper publication of 2^ndSale Notice dated 07.03.2023 (impugned) –English (New Indian Express, Chennai Edition) dated 09.03.2023.	R-20
21.	Proof of Paper publication of 2^ndSale Notice dated 07.03.2023 (impugned) –Vernacular (Andraprabha, Telugu Prakasam District Edition) dated 09.03.2023.	R-21
22.	Proof of Paper publication of 2^ndSale Notice dated 07.03.2023 (impugned) –Vernacular (Dinakaran, Tamil Chennai Edition) dated 09.03.2023.	R-22
23. 24.	Valuation Report in respect of the properties mentioned in the impugned sale notice dated 07.03.2023 dated 30.10.2022. Statement of Accounts.	R-23 R-24

SA No.250/2023

07.10.2025

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶160

Item No.1: (Land Bit 2 in Property No.1 in Sale Notice)

¶161

Land situated at S.No.55/6 (2.80 Acres) of Rayavaram Village and Panchayat, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District in the name of KLV Rama Rao lying within the Registration District of Prakasam and SubRegistration District of Podili, bounded on the:

¶162

North by : Gayam Venkamma’s Land South by : Palleboyina Kasaiah’s Land East by : Gayam Chennaiah’s Land West by : Vemula Padmaja’s Land

¶163

Item No.2:

¶164

Vacant Land admeasuring 1.64 acres situated at S.No.125/3 of Rayavaram village, and Panchyat, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam district the name of Mr. KLV Rama Rao lying within the Registration District of Prakasam and Sub-Registration District of Podili, bounded on the ;

¶165

North by : Land of Gayam China Velugonda Reddy South by : Ongole-Markapuram Road East by : Land of Bommareddy & Brahmananda Reddy West by : Land of Batcha Krishnaiah

¶166

Sd/- (S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

Klv Rama Rao v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Klv Rama Rao v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B Sriram versus Bank of Baroda

State Bank of India versus Santhiya

Ganesan versus Five Star Business Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus S. Bhuvaneshwari

Mr Madhankumar Ramalingam versus Federal Bank

G Mahalakshmi versus Union Bank of India