Application filed under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act challenging a Sale Notice. Applicant contended failure to issue redemption notice under Rule 3(6); Bank denied illegality. Court held application devoid of merits.
Application dismissed as there are no merits; applications pending, if any, stand disposed of.
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 DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE ] 1TF] DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No.265/2023
Sri Narasimha Reddy Kasireddy, S/o Chinna Reddy, Aged 60 years, Occ:business, Rl o 2-13 1, Kanchiravupalli, Pebair Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Dist.
... Applicant
Versus
Karnataka Bank Ltd, Asset Recovery Management branch, Plot No.50, Srinagar Colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-sOO 073.
Rep. by its Authorized officer
... Respondent Bank
Counsel for the Applicant : Sn ?. Sridhar Reddy Counsel for Respondent bank : Sri N.Meher Prasad
ORDER
n brief are as follows:
The Applicant ndent Bank and thereafter committed defriu :6iues. All of a sudden, the ,si
Respondent Bank sent some persons to the schedule property on 24.07.2023 and they informed that they are intending purchasers of the schedule property and they furnished a copy of the Sale Notice dt.16.O6.2O23 issued by the bank to the Applicant. Before issuing the said sale notice, the Respondent Bank failed to issue notice u/r g(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 lor giving an opportunity to the Applicant to redeem the schedule property. The Respondent has not published the impugned possession notice and sale notice in two leading newspapers and also not affixed the said notices on the schedule property. Hence the SA.
The Respondent filed their Reply denying a1l the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the proposed auction pursuant to the impugned Sale Notice dt.16.06.2O2S was not materialized. prior to issuing the said sale notice, the Respondent bank issued possession notice dt.24.07.2O2O and the saidnotice was affixed on the schedule property and it was also published in two daily newspapers. Hence the SA becomes infructuous. Accordingly, Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.
,1JuilZffi
Potnt JVo.(if:_
8'
The Appricant filed the present sA contending that the Respondent Bank has not issued notice u/r 3(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rule s, 2oo2 before issuing the impugned sale notice. So, suffice, a direction is given to the Respondent Bank to scrupulously follow the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act' 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing fresh sare notice to the Applicant for conducting auction of the schedule property. So this point is answered accordingly.
Point No.(il):-
In the result, dismissed as there are no merits. Consequen plications, pending if any, shall stand dispose$of. No rasto !b 1 1Jtflq nfi i.d
l0.Communicate a copy of thisorder to the partiesconcerned.
(/],lctated to the P.S, transci'bedby ter, corrected', signed and pronouncedbg me in the open court on this the llthdaA of June' 2025).
sdl_ (G. GOPI CHAND) PRESIDINGOFFICER
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the SARFAESI action is liable to be dismissed as the relief claimed has become infructuous due to the auction being stayed.
Whether the Respondent Bank's action was legal as it issued a possession notice before the sale notice.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Narasimha Reddy Kasireddy
Karnataka Bank Ltd
Gummadi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
