Allowed

M Ravikumar Reddy v. Canara Bank

DRT7 Jan 2025SA/37/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tribunal disposed of a Securitization Application challenging an auction sale notice. Citing a previous order (SA No. 01/2020) that set aside the same sale notice due to discrepancies in the demand notice, the Tribunal allowed the present application and directed the bank to take steps as per the previous order. The claims against other respondents were dismissed for lack of notice.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Auction sale notice dated 07.01.2023 set aside; Bank directed to take steps as per previous order SA No. 01/2020.

M Ravikumar Reddy versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL . I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY. 2C25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.B7 /2C23,

¶5

M. Ravi Kumar Reddy, S/o Manikya Reddy Aged 34 years, Occ:business, R/o Vaviiala Village, Itilryala Mandal, JogulambaGadwal District.

¶6

...Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

l.Canara Bank, ARM Branch, 3'd floor, Circle Office building,

¶9

MCH No. 10-3- 163& 10-3 -163 I A, Plot No.85, Sy.No.625, Beside Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad-5O0 O26

¶10

Rep. by its Authorized Officer

¶11

Mls Masani Reddy poultry Farms Sy.No.476, Pudur village,

¶12

Gadwal Mandal, Mahbubnagar Dist. Rep. by its^proprietor M. Venkateswar Reddy, S/o Manik Reddy

¶13

Smt. Seshamma, W/o M.Manik Reddy, R/o H.No.2-54/I,

¶14

Vavilala Village, Itikyala Mandal, JogulambaGadwal District.

¶15

M.Thirumaleswar Reddy, S/o M.Krishna Reddy, Aged 35 years, R/o H.No.3_39, R/o Vavilala Village, Itikyala Mandal, JogulambaGadwal District.

¶16

ij rt
,m
ii * 07"rANrn2s :
x
tl -
\r'':-r rud;*t
..Respondents.

¶17

Courusel for the Applicant

¶18

Counsel for l"t Respond"ent bank

¶19

Counsel for Respond.ents No.2 to 4

¶20

Sn B. GandhamBhaskar Y.s.s. Prasad :no

¶21

SA.No.37/2023

¶22

,ORDER..

¶23

This Securitization application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 challenging thee Auction sale Notice dt.07.0I.2023 issued by the lst Respondent Bank against the schedule properties and to declare the same as null and void.

¶24

The averments made in the application, in brief, are as under,-

¶25

The Applicant is a guarantor to the loan facilities availed by the lna Respondent from the 1st Respondent Bank. The 1"t Respondent bank issued eAuction Sale Notice dt.07.0i.1023 for conducting auction of the schedule properties on 1s.o2.2o23 and the said lands are agricultural lands.The 1"t Respondent Bank also filed OA 66 t I lT before this Tribunal and the said oA was allowed by this Tribunal.

¶26

.).The lst Respondent Bank Iiled theircounter and adopted the same as Reply inSA and contended that Respondent No.2 herein availed loan from the lst Respondent Bank and the Applicant and Respondents No'3&4 are the guarantors to the said loan facilities.The lst Respondent Bank filed o.A.66ll2o17 against the Applicant and Respondents No.2 to 4 herein for recovery of asum of r2,s2,g3,274.23 ps. and the said oA was allowed by this Tribunal vide orders dt. t6.o4.2olg. The 1st

¶27

Respondent Bank issued Sale Notice dt.o7 .o1.2023 for conducing auction of the schedule properties on 1s.o2.2o23 by following the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder. The mortgaged properties are not agricultural properties as evidenced by the conversion certificates and so, the lst Resnonde-![?n[.!;1s rightly proceeded against the schedule properties

¶28

by foi U.. laid down under the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2.
A sly, ent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.
3
0 7 JAtl 2tl25 '{
q,
t:-
*Q ^S

¶29

SA.No.37/2023

¶30

Heard Ld. counsel for the Applicant and ld. counsel for the 1st Respondent Bank whereas claim against Respondents No.2 to 4 is dismissed as notice was not taken on them.

¶31

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,_

¶32

whether the Applicanthas established. qna ualid ground" for challenging the e Auction sale Notice d.t.17.01.2023 issued. by the i"r Respondent Bank in respect of the schedure properties?

¶33

iil To what relieJ?

¶34

Points No.(i):-

¶35

6' During the course of arguments,it is brought to the notice of this Tribunal that the 2"dRespondent herein i.e. Mls Masani Reddy poultry Farm filed SA otl2o2o against the lstRespondent Bank herein and another challenging the sale Notice dt.07.0r.2o23 issued by the lstRespondent Bank herein. The said SA was allowed by this Tribunal vide orders dt. 17.1o.2024 by setting aside the auction conducted by the lstRespondent Bank in respect of the mortgagedproperties on the premise that the very demand notice dt.22.or.2o2t issued by the 1"t Respondent Bank herein was not in conformity with the amount awarded by this Tribunal in 0.A.66rl2or7. o.A.66rl2orr was filed by the 1st Respondent Bank on the file of this Tribunal against the 2nd Respondent herein and others for recovery of dues and the said oA was allowed by this Tribunal on 16.04.2o1g directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.9,36,73,2791- with subsequent interest @ 60/o p.a. simple from the date of filing of o.A. till realization. So a direction was given to the herein to issue fresh demand notice Lffi"-g$ii:t3ttu per the order passed in 0.,4.66l/2OlT. 6at. by the Applicant here i n by firing {h1n6.?, fi'fr rnflho i*$rarantor and mortgagor to the loan

¶36

I
:. ..1 S{r
,9f^.S'
:g.?flss?7'

¶37

SA.No.37/2023

¶38

facilities availed by the 2"dRespondent herein from the l"tRespondent Bank. As the said impugned Sale Notice dt.07. to.2o23 was already set aside by this Tribunal vide orders dt.rz.lo.2o24 in SA otl2o2o as referred above, the sale notice challenged by the Applicant herein is also liable to be set aside.

¶39

Point No liil

¶40

7 . In the result, SA 37 l2O23is allowed by setting aside the impugned e Auction Sale Notice dt.07.O1.2023 issued by the 1st Respondent Bank in respect of the schedule properties. Accordingly, The lst Respondent Bank is hereby directed to take steps as per the direction given by thisTribunal in SA 0I l2O2O.

¶41

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dictated to the P.5., transcibed bg her, corrected., signed. and. pronounced. by me in the open court on this the Vn dag of JanuarU, 2025).

¶43

sd/ - (G. GOPTCHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

d"ffiffi
,.;1f';'l;*'{,'J''o

M Ravikumar Reddy v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Ravikumar Reddy v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/s. Laksheya Group

M/S. Smith and Kenner Pharmaceauticals Private Limited versus Asset Reconstruction (India) Ltd. (Arcil)

City Union Bank Limited versus M/s. Kpg Projects

Union Bank of India versus Ms. Bachu Soujanya

State Bank of India versus M/S. Saa Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S. R.P. Industry