Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application challenging the validity of a Sale Notice due to alleged non-publication of notices. The court held the plea infructuous as no auction was conducted, rendering the notice void.
The Sale Notice was held infructuous due to non-auction; the bank is directed to issue a fresh Sale Notice.
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. I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE. 2025
PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
sA.No.3 1A/2e23
M/s Brahmaputra Hybrid Seeds P.Ltd., Rep. by its Director Sri Y.Ramprasad Raju, S/o Y.Krishnam Raju, aged 51 years, Situated at Plot No.407, Phase-3, Gayatri Nagar, Saroornagar, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 079
... Applicant
And
Karnataka Bank Ltd., Rep.by its Authorized officer Assets Recovery Management branch, Situated at 1st floor, Plot No.50, Srinagar colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500073.
.... Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant Si D.Raghawlu
Counsel for the 7"t Respondent Bank Sn N.Rama Rao
-: ORDER.
void. aq'".
,.s (i':3 E:+ i
*$
!.k
The Applicant availed loan from the Respondent Bank and thereafter could not repay the loan instalments. On Ol.Og.2O2S, the Applicant was shocked and surprised to see that the Respondent is trying to sell the schedule property in pursuance of the impugned Sale Notice dt.O4.0g.2o23. The Respondent has not serveddemand notice, possession notice to the Applicant and the said possession notice was not published in two daily newspapers nor afhxed on the schedule property and similarly, the impugned sale notice was also not published in two daily newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property and not served on the Applicant and so, the said notices are defective and liable to be set aside. Hence the SA.
The Respondent Bank filedReply by denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA. It is contended that after availing loan facilities from the Respondent Bank, the Applicant committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NPA and the Respondent Bank issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAEST Act, 2OO2 dt.09.08.2019 and the said notice was received by one of the Directors of the Applicant firm, Ch.Rammohan and the notice sent to the other directors wasreturned, so, the said demand notice was published in Nava Telangana and Financial Express daily newspapers. Thereafter,the Respondent bank issued possession notice dt.Ol .O7.2O2O and the said possession notice was published in two daily newspapers and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property and the said notice was received by one of the Directors of the A , theRespondent bank issuedthe impu 08.2023 by lixing the date of auction on '.9,1.2023 and the said Sale notice was received by the Applican it was oublished Mana Telangana and Business S ."a02a"{iill2llffi*.* . Accordingly, the Respondent e procedure laid down
under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing a1l the relevant notices to the Applicant and hence there are no merits in the SA and the SA is liable to be dismissed.
Polnt No.li)t
- During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.
':-
published in-two ':- l[|a[ing.Jflgmpapers "and so, rhe said sale notice t. -.f is tiable to\b) e set as li de. t'\
3
- Per contra, Respondent Bank contended that the Bank has strictly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the relevant notices to the Applicant.
Point No.lti):-
(Dictated to the P's transcribed bg her' corrected., signed. and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 2"d day ofJune,2025).
,.j
<br>t',,
,:
i
'. li COPY
sd/ - (c. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicant has established valid grounds for challenging the non-publication of notices and dispossession prior to auction?
Whether the plea regarding defective notices is legally tenable given the inaction of the bank?
What is the appropriate relief in the absence of an actual auction?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Brahmaputra Hybrid Seeds P.Ltd.
Karnataka Bank Ltd.
GUMMADI GOPICHAND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
