Allowed

Thakkallapally Prathyusha v. Repco Home Finance Ltd.

DRT25 Apr 2025SA/377/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged an auction sale notice under the SARFAESI Act alleging procedural illegality. The Debts Recovery Tribunal held that the respondent failed to justify compliance and quashed the auction notice, allowing the applicant to proceed afresh.

What did the court decide?

The auction sale notice dated 29.08.2023 is quashed. The Respondent is at liberty to proceed afresh against the applicants by following SARFAESI Act provisions.

Thakkallapally Prathyusha versus Repco Home Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 25III DAY OF APRIL,2C^25

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No.377 /2C^23

¶4

1 . Smt. ThakkallapallyPrathyusha, W/o P. DevenderRao, Occ:business, R/o H.No .l-22, Grandrapalli, .Iammikunta, Tclangana-505475.

¶5

P. Devender Rao, S/o P.Sampath Rao, Aged 45 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No .l-22, Grandrapalli, Jammikunta,

Telangana-505475

... Applicants

Versus

RBPCO Home Irinance Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized Officer 3.d floor, Alexander Square, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600032.. ... Respondent C)ounsel for the Applicants : Sri K. BuchiBabu Respondent : Si Sajid Pasha

¶10

ORDER

¶11

t. 1'hc Applicants filed thr: prcscnt Sccuritisation Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2) challenging the e Auction Sale Notice dt.29.08.2023 issued by the Respondent fixin uction clf the schedule property on 20.10 .2023 me as illegal and void. 'f-."ffi^'s

¶12

1. 'l'he ave :nts madf,-in the ication, in brief, are that, the Applican tfiJudP$.'tffifu *hs vailed credit facilities from the Respond of schedule properties. It is Eii;;:;M

¶13

sA 377 /2023

¶14

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 impugned Auction Sale Notice dt.29.O8.2O23 without following the procedure and the Respondent failed to obtain valuation before fixing the reserve^price of the schedule property. The Pre-salc notice u/r 8(6) was not affixed on the schedule property. Hencc the SA.

¶15

¶16

Though Mr.SajidPasha, 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 forfeited.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶20

i) Whether the Applicants haue established any ualid grounds for setting aside the e Auction Sale Notice dt.29.08.2023 issued bg the Respondent against the schedule property?

¶21

iil To what relief?

¶22

filed the present SA challenging the proceedings ated by spondent for sale of the schedule property pursuant e Auction Sale Notice dt.29.08.2o23. But the invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the failed to justify their action by filing Reply and material documents to prove that the Respondent

¶23

sA 37712023

¶24

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 allegations of the Applicants. In the absence of any material evidence to show that the Respondent has duly complied with the mandated provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2OO2 in issuing the impugned Auction Sale Notice dt.29.08.2o23, I hold that the Applicants have made a case for quashing the measures initiatcd by the Respondent against the SA schedule property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.

¶25

Point No.(ii):-

¶26

In the result, SA 377 12023 is allowed.

¶27

Accordingly, the impugned Auction Sale Notice dt.29.o8.2o23 issued by the Respondent against the schedule property is hereby quashed. However, the Respondent is at liberty to procccd afresh against the SA schedule property to recover their dues by duly following the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules thereunder.

¶28

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

¶29

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶30

(Dictated to the Priuate Secretary, transcibed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by court on this the 25tt,dag of April,2o2).

¶31

-dtr
-O'A sd/-
B (G. GOPTCHAND)GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
roq 7025 :
.'
tg
,""rffi"w ;ffi

¶32

(G. GOPTCHAND)GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶33

tg ;ffi

Thakkallapally Prathyusha v. Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakkallapally Prathyusha v. Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

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

Palleni Sampath Rao and Another versus Repco Home Finance Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Chaitanya Transport

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