Dismissed

Mohammad Abdul Salaam v. State Bank of India

DRT1 Aug 2025SA/40/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application where the Applicant challenged a sale notice fixing an e-auction. The court held the Applicant failed to establish valid grounds as prior notices were duly served and published, and previous proceeding challenges were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The present Securitization Application is dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.

Mohammad Abdul Salaam versus State Bank of India — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE O 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST. 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No. 40 /2024

¶5

Sri Mohammed Abdul Salarn, S/o. Mohd Abdul Aziz, Gender: Male, Aged about 42yexs, R/o.Flat No.101 , 1"t Floor, Aziz Heights, H.No. tO-2-318 /l lw l10, Indira Nagar Colony, Aztznagar, Hyderabad-28.

¶6

Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Bank of India, SARB, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, 2"a Floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal Complex, Koti, Hyderabad-95.

¶9

Respondent-

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for the Respondent

¶11

Si D. Raghauulu. Si P.V. Satg anaraA ana.

¶12

-:ORDERi

¶13

The Applicant frled the present Securitization Application under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, chalienging the SaJe Notice dt.30.12.2023, issued by the Respondent Bank, frxing the e-auction of the application schedule property on oa.o2.2024.

¶14

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that, the Applicant availed Housing Loan of Rs.28,0O,OO0/- from the Respondent Bank in the year 2O2O by mortgegrng the application schedule property in favour of the Respondent Bank as security. The Applicant paid some loan installments regularly but, subsequently due to losses sustained in his business during covid-19 pandemic he corl-]d_ rt6t:.T4r:"Jhe loarr installments. The Respondent Bank proceeded rlnde; 6j6"^,''lnn$bSf Acr and issued possession Notice .- .r.'^.i. .. .t, ',1. dt.28.O6.2odi,'.,1'fr"f f "",S* ,+t"iE -. ,f-r" Appticant herein earlier frled SA.No.1 aia However, the said SA.No.12O/2021 ended in d1.29. 1 1.2023. The Respondent ""d "1d{&6d2n6r

¶15

&sffiS

¶16

SA.No-40/2024

¶17

Bank has also filed oA.No.5o/2021 before this Tribunal and obtained order dr.29.o4.2o22 a',d the Respondent Bank herein is also proceed.ing for the auction of the schedule property in recovery proceedings i.e., in R.P.No'56/2022. 1'he Applicant IIed MA.IR.N o.2 /2024 for setting aside the order dt.29.04.2022 passed in OA.No.50/2O21 and same is pending adjudication. while so, the Respondent Bank issued sale Notice dt.3o.72.2o23 under the SARFAESI Act, hxing the e-auction of the schedule property on o8.o2.2o24. The Respondent Ba,k has failed to serve Demand Notice, Possession Notice and SaIe Notice on the Applicant. The Respondent Bank has failed to affrx the Possession Notice and Sa.le Notice on the schedule property and has a-lso failed to publish the said notices in two leading newspapers. The Respondent Bank has failed to obtain varuation of the sched.ure property from the approved valuer. Hence, the SA.

¶18

The Respondent Bank filed Memo adopting its counter hled in IA.No.304/2024, wherein the Respondent Ba',k denied a.l1 the adverse allegations made in the SA. The contentions of the Respondent Bank, in brief, are that, the Applicant herein earlier fr-led SA.No.12o/2o2r before this Tribuna-l challenging the Possession Notice dt.28.06.2021, issued by the Respondent Bank u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and this Tribunal after going through the materi,l papers filed by the Respondent Bank along with its Reply Statement, had given a crear finding in the order dt.29.1 1.2023 that the Authorized officer of the Respondent Bank has duly served the Demand Notice dt.04.02.2O21 as well as the Possession Notice dt.28.05.2o21 on the Applicant and dismissed the said sA.No.I20/2021. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank had proceeded further arrd issued e-Auction Sale Notice dt.30. 12.2023 under Rule g(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, by fixing the auction of the schedule property on O8.O2.2O24. The said notice was duly served on the Applicant and thereafter published in two newspapers in compliance of Rules g(6) & 9(1) of the Rules, 2002. The Respondent Bank has duly followed the procedure laid down under the Act and the Rules made thereunder and the present SA frled by to be dismissed.

¶19

¶20

and perused the Written Arguments filed by t Bank.

¶21

¶22

SA.No.40/2024

¶23

Now, the points that arise for consideration a::e;-

¶24

(i) Whether the Applicant has made out any valid grounds for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the l"t Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act against the application schedule property?

¶25

(ii) To what relieP

¶26

Polnt No.ll):-

¶27

The Applicant has not disputed availing of credit facility from the Respondent Bank by mortgaging the application schedule property ald thereafter committing of default in the repal,rnent of loan amount. Admittedly, the Applicant earlier filed SA.No.12O/2021 before this Tribunal challenging the Possession Notice 28.06.2021, issued by the Respondent in respect of t}re schedule property, wherein he has raised similar grounds in respect of Demand Notice and Possession Notice, as raised in the present SA. It is a matter of record that this Tribunal vide order df .29 .11.2023 dismissed the said SA.No.12O/2021 holding that the Respondent Bank has duly served the Demald Notice and Possession Notice on the Applicant and the Respondent Bank has duly followed the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder while issuing the Possession Notice dt.28.06.2021 against the application schedule property. So, the Applica_nt cannot raise the similar grounds in the present SA. As regards the e-Auction Sale Notice dt.3O.12.2O23, issued by the Respondent Bank frxing the auction of the schedule property on O8.O2.2O24, is concerned, the Respondent Bank has filed a copy of the postal acknowledgement which clearly establishes that the said e- Auction Sale Notice was duly served on the Applicant. The Respondent Bank has a-lso frled copies of photographs depicting affixture of e-Auction Sa_le Notice on the schedule property and copies of publication of e-Auction Sa_le Notice in The Financial Express' and 'Eenadu' newspapers, which amply prove that the However, Ld. Counsel in his Written Arguments ied Officer of the Respondent Bank could not edule property, pursuant to the said e-Auction Sale e said e-Auction Sa.le Notice dt.30.12.2023, issued

¶28

sA.No.40/2024

¶29

by the Respondent Bank, fixing auction of the schedule property on OS.O2.2O24 has become in fructuous.

¶30

So, in view of the above facts and circumstances, I hold that the Applicant has failed to establish any valid ground for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank and the present SA, which is devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this point is answered. against the Applicant and in favour of the Respondent Bank.

¶31

Polnt No,lll):-

¶32

In the result, the present securitization Application is dismissed. consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶33

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶34

(Dictated -to the Priuate Secretary, transcribed. bg her, conected, signed and. pronoun(ud by me in the open aurt on this the Ola daA of August, 2025).

¶35

sd/(G. coPrcHANDl PRESIDING OFFICER

¶36

01,,UCM5

¶37

Mohammad Abdul Salaam v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Abdul Salaam v. State Bank of India

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S. Novelty Reddy and Reddy Motors Private Limited

Sri Dommati Sai Krishna Rep by Poa Holder Dommati Sambaiah versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mr. Devunuri Ashok

Jahangir Mohd versus Shriram Finance Limited

Amit Bajaj versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance

M S Indiramma Enterprises versus Indian Bank