This order dismisses the applicant's petition challenging the auction sale notice issued by the respondent bank for default in loan repayment. The court held the petition infructuous as the scheduled auction was never conducted.
The sale notice is held infructuous as no auction was conducted; the application is dismissed as abandoned.
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 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2C25
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
sA.No.3A/2024
Sri Mohammed Abdul Saleem, S/o Mohd.Abdul Aziz, Aged 58 years, Occ:business, R/o flat No.40l, 4'].floor, Block-A, Aziz Heights, H.No.10-2-3-318/ 1 lAl LO, Indiranagar Colony, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad-500057.
... Applicant
Versus
State Bank of India Rep. by its Authorized officer 2,d floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal Complex, Koti, Hyderabad-SOO 095.
... Respondent Bank
Courusel for the Applicant : Sri D.Raghauulu
Counsel for Respondent bank ; Sn P. V.SatyanaraAana
ORDER
property on 08.02.2024 a as null and void.
The Applicant availed housing loan from the Respondent bank by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property. Due to loss in the business, the Applicant could not repay the loan dues and so, the Respondent Bank issued demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and challenging the said possession notice dt.28.06.2O2L, the Applicant filed SA Llgl2l and the same was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dt.29.11.2o23. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank issued Auction Sale Notice dt.30.12,2023 by fixing the date of auction on 08.02 .2024 without following the due process of law. The impugned sale notice was not affixed on the schedule property and it was not published in two daily newspapers. Similarly, possession notice was also not published in newspapers and the same was not affixed on the schedule property and the said notice was issued without serving dcmand notice on the Applicant. Hence the SA.
Point /Vo.(i):-
Polnt No.(tt):-
(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bV her, corrected, signed andpronounced bg me inthe open courl on this the- 1! dalt of September,2025).
sd/(G. GOPI CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER
6"*,*q
ftf w "hN
j, nrsEp2us :
fr.b#
TRUEgOPY
t 9( l*-'
lb i:r;=*
,#im; . ),. <br>
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicant has established valid grounds for challenging the Auction Sale Notice issued by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Whether the auction propelled pursuant to the impugned sale notice requires adjudication or stands infructuous.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Not mentionedReferred
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohammed Abdul Saleem
State Bank of India
Gummadu Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
