Allowed

Palleni Sampath Rao and Another v. Repco Home Finance Limited

DRT25 Apr 2025SA/376/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a Securitisation Application filed by borrowers challenging an electronic auction sale notice issued by REPCO Home Finance Ltd. Finding that the Respondent failed to justify non-compliance with SARFAESI Act provisions, the auction notice was quashed allowing the Respondent to proceed afresh.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application allowed and the impugned electronic auction sale notice dated 29.09.2023 against the schedule property quashed.

Palleni Sampath Rao and Another versus Repco Home Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -- 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED T'HIS'rHE 25111 DAY OF APRIL. 2C25

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.876/2OZB

¶5

l.Palleni Sampath Rao, S/o Rajeshwar Rao,

¶6

Aged 65 yars, Occ:business,

¶7

R/o H.No .l-7212, Grandrapapally,

¶8

Jammikuna, Near Showbhagzalaxmi Function Hall, Karimnagar-505475.

¶9

Smt. PalleniPramila,

¶10

W/o PalleniSampath Rao, Aged 58 yars, Occ:house wife R/o H.No .l-7212, Grandrapapally,

¶11

Jammikuna, Near Showbhagralaxmi Function Hall, Karimnagar-505475

¶12

... Applicants

¶13

Versus

¶14

REPCO Home Finance Ltd. Rep. by its Authorrzed Officer Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600032..

¶15

Counsel for the Applicants Respondent

¶16

... Respondent ; Sn K. BuchiBabu : Sri Sajid Pasha

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Thc Applicants filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.17 of thc Securitization and Reconstruction of Irinancial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2oo2 (SARFAESI Act, 2oo2) challenging the e Auction Sale Notice dt.29.o9.2o23 issued by the Respondent fixin of the schedule property on 20.1O.2023 an s illegal and void.

¶19

sA376/2023

¶20

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicantsare the borrowers who availed credit facilities from the Respondent against the mortgage of schedule properties. It is submitted that due to financial crunch,the Applicants could not repay some instalments and so, the Respondent classified the loan account as NPA. The Respondent till date, did not issue demand notice and the possession notice was not affixed on the schedule property and the said notice was not published in two daily newspapers. The Respondent issued the impugncd Auction Sale Notice dt.29.O8.2023 without following the procedurc and thc Respondent failed to obtain valuation before fixing the reserve price of the schedule property. The Pre-sale notice u/r 8(6) was not affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.

¶21

Though Mr.SajidBasha, advocate filed vakalat for Respondent, not filed Reply and there was no representation even after giving several opportunities and hence the right of filing counter and reply was [orfeited.

¶22

Heard Ld. counsel for the Applicants and perused the material brought on record.

¶23

¶24

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶25

I whether the Applicants haue established. any ualid. ground.s for setting aside the e Auction sale Notice d.t.29.08.202s issued by ttrc Respondent against the schedule property?

¶26

iil To what

¶27

6 f,P Point No.(i) Il '', 2 5 opn 2025 6. The ApplicantS^,'filed the present SAf the proceedings .^\i;, "{ -^H, initiated by the nf;#-+OT: t"?g$?,S,f schedule property pursuant ro the t'.0"*".$ffi-.F#i,." dt.2e.08.2023. But the

¶28

sA376/2023

¶29

Respondent who invoked thc sARFAI,lsl proceedings against the schedule property, failed to justify their action by filing Reply and produce necessary material documents to prove that the Respondent has strictly followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder in issuing thee Auction sale Notice dt.29.08.2023. The Respondent has not evinced any interest in contesting the matter even after giving several opportunities and failed to file their Reply and material documents to disprove the ailegations of the Applicants. In the absence of any material evidence to show that the Respondent has duly complied with thc mandatcd provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rule s, 2OO2 in issuing thc impugned Auction Salc Noticc dt.29.08.2o23, I hold that the Applicants have made a case for quashing the measures initiated by the Respondent against the SA schedule property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder and as such, thc SA is liablc to be allowed.

Point No.(ii):-

In the result, SA 37612023 is allowed.

¶34

Accordingly, the impugned Auction Sale Notice dt.29.o9.2o2s issued by the Respondent against the schedulc property is hereby quashed. Ilowever, the llespondcnt is at libcrty to procced afresh against thc SA schedule property to recover their dues by duly following the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules thereunder.

¶35

The Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶36

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated to the Piuate Secretary, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg
me tn 25th das of Apit,202s).
-^f i'*td f filhe
sd/-
k
(G. GOPTCHAND)
TRUE COPY PRESIDING OFFICER
,l 2sAPBz$A I
r.-"li .-i
,"+f'ffif'
3
Wffi\W

Palleni Sampath Rao and Another v. Repco Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palleni Sampath Rao and Another v. Repco Home Finance Limited

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

State Bank of India versus Salla Ram Reddy

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Genex Tubing Solutions

State Bank of India versus Kannuri Kanaka Durga Prasad

Thakkallapally Prathyusha versus Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Chaitanya Transport

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus M/s. Sarayu Fuel Point