Applicant challenged a Sale Notice under SARFAESI Act, claiming lack of prior statutory notices. Court noted Respondent issued demand and possession notices but no auction followed, rendering the Sale Notice infructuous, thus dismissing the application.
Application dismissed as infructuous; Respondent directed to proceed afresh for sale of the schedule property.
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 7IH DAY OF JULY.2025
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER
SA.No.32t /ZO2S
Sri Banoth Ramesh, S/o BanothSakram, Aged 40 years, Occ:agriculture, H.No. 1- 180, Goalthanda, Patharlapadu, Khammam Dist. Tclangana-S07 I 83.
... Applicant
Versus
Indian Overseas Bank, Pindiprolubranh, KBR Complex, Pindiprolu, Thirumalaypalem Mandal, Khammam Dist. Rep. by its Authorized officer
... Respondent Bank
Courusel for the Applicant : Sn R.Rajendra Prasad Counsel for Respondent bank : Sri M.Sriniuas
ORDER
f t!#, $'" ^' "i.ii: I n(' of$rmcl .,,J*rN by thc Applicanr in bricf are as follows: .fr} 07JUL
The Applicant availed loan from the Respondentbank by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues. So, the Respondent classified the loan account as NPA and without issuing any prior notices to the Applicant, straightaway issued' the impugned Sale Notice dt.19.O8.2O23for conducting auction of the schedule property on 22.09.2023.The Respondent has not published the impugned possession notice in two lcading newspapers and also not affixed the same on the schedule property. Hence the SA.
Point JVo.(i):-
(). In order to substantiate their contention, the RespondentBank filed relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent bank issued demand notice dt.17.12.2022 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the said notice to the Applicant and the said notice was received by the Applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgement filed by the 9.At:Thereafter, the Respondent issued possessionnotice I1_ ed.t,1.g_ t'ii':'' ,t#'fu-*ar'l;?f6r?P8_,.^.dthe said notice was receivedby the Appticant as #Vevid$cedOry\O.stal acknowledgementsfiled by the Respondent. The otice was published in Telugu and English daily s o L$uf"iln ""; ced by the copies of paper publication filed by the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property frs;:::::fffip 3 ff#iilt"u
as depicted in the photographs filed bythe Respondent.Thus,the Respondent Bank has duly issued demandnotice and possession notice to the Applicant and also compliedwith Rule 8(1)&(2)of Securit5rInterest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2. So far as theimpugned SaleNotice dt.19.08.2023 is concerned, thereis no disputeregardingthe receiptof the said sale notice by the Applicant.During the courseof arguments, both the Ld. Counsel submitted that inpursuanceof the said sale notice, no auction was conducted by theRespondentBank.
Point No.(ti):-
(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open
z Vhdag of Julg, 2025).
sd/-
#. J,'o
(G. GOPI CHANDI
PRESIDING OF'FICER
n , rrrr amP *\i
[; 0 7 JUL 2m ;]j
ORT.I, HYW,RABAC
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Sale Notice issued by the Respondent Bank without prior demand and possession notices was valid and legally enforceable.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Banoth Ramesh
Indian Overseas Bank
Sri Gummadi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
