In an application challenging a sale notice issued under the SARFAESI Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Petition because the scheduled auction did not materialize and the bank successfully proved compliance with notice provisions.
The Securitisation Application filed by the Applicant was dismissed as devoid of any merits.
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 - II AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KoTHE, B.com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. 302 OF 2022
Between:
Mr. Mahabaleshwarappa p S/o P.K. Mallana
Aged: 59 years, Occ: Business 21-230-8, Mandigiri, Adoni Kurnool, A.p.
.......Applicant.
And
......Respondents.
Counsel for the Appticants ' M/s. T. Sridhar Reddy, Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Mr. N, Rama Rao. Respondent No.2 : Oismissedlor |N"default.
sA.3O2l2022
Lr"t,unOEnforcement of Security Interest Act' 2002 (n"r"inuft".referred to as "SARFAESIAct 2002")assailing auctionsate proceedingsheld on 18'10'2022 pursuantto sale noticedated08 09'2022issuedby the 1't respondentbank againstthe ApPlication scheduleproperties'
conductedauction on 78'10'2022 fixing the '"'|Xff:r:; _/'-'rr1r.*
3
s A. 3O2/2O22
the properties at Rs.84,13,300/_ and Rs.69,90,210l_ without obtaining latest valuatior wo rth or Rs. 3, o o, o o, o0o):: ::" JJ::ilT;; :l':J:Xi];: The respondent bank failed to follow the provisions of SARFAESI Act and the notice, possession ,o,,.u'" '2002 in serving the demand pubrishins the same in newspapers within the ",,;il,lJlii!:
4
sA.3O2l2O22
i) Wether the Applicants made out any valid ground for quashing the sale notice dated 08.09.2022 against the schedule property under the provisioru of Securitisation Act? i, To what relieJ?
Point No. (i)t
r
"A.3O2/2o22
on 18.10.2022 has ;:I:,'"T';; li:[l#,lll:,#::':."' :::Ili, J;: proceed nss, uppr .unl j:: :::ff i#:i:,T"::",;,jIj"j; provisions of Section 13(2) and Section .jl&l) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rules 8(1) and B(2) ofthe Security Interest (Enforcement) Rures, 2OO2 in serving demand notice and possession , notice. Respondent bank placed enough material vide pages 5 to 25 annexed to the reply statement evidencing serving of demand notice and the possession notice and its affixture and publication. Therefore, the contentions against these two issues stand disproved. Thus, applicant failed to make out any valid for setting aside the possession notice dated 08.03.2022 issued by the respondent bank against the SA schedule properties. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, I find that the SA is devoid of any merits and therefore, the same is liable to dismissed.
Point No.(ii):
(Dictoted to the Steno, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th doy of July, 2025).
&''*" ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Applicant made out any valid ground for quashing the sale notice dated 08.09.2022 under the provisions of the Securitisation Act?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mathew Varghese vs M Amritha KumarReferred¶16
Mathew Varghese vs M Amritha Kumar - (2014) 5 SCC 610 · Who else cites this
2016 (6) ALD 409Referred¶16
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Mahabaleshwarappa p S/o P.K. Mallana
Karnataka Bank Ltd.
M/s. P. K. Mallanna & Bros.
Rameshwar Kothe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
