Dismissed

Smt. S.N. Vani Ram, and others v. Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitization Company Limited

DRT15 Oct 2025SA/406/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In re Application u/s 17 SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging a Sale Notice for auction of secured property. The Tribunal held that since no auction was conducted in pursuance of the impugned notice, the Applicants' claim became infructuous, and consequently dismissed the Application. Pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as infructuous; interlocutory applications pending privately disposed of. No order as to costs.

Smt. S.N. Vani Ram, and others versus Pridhvi Asset… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1 sTH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.406/2C23

¶5

Smt. N.Vani Ram, W/o late Sri S.N. Rama Krishna, Aged 70 years, Occ:house wife, R/o Plot No.104, Mamatha Nagar colony, Street No.7C, Nagole, Hyderabad-sO0 068

¶6

Sri R.Prashant, S/o late S.N. Ramakrishna, Aged 48 years, Occ:business, R/o Plot No.104, Mamatha Nagar colony,

¶7

Street No.7C, Nagole, Hyderabad-sOO 068

¶8

Smt. R.Saritha, W I o Sri P.Chandra sekhar, Aged 45 years, R/o Plot No.63A, 2-l-236, Street No.4D, Mamatha Nagar Colony, Nagole, Hyderabad-sOO 068.

¶9

... Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitization Company Ltd., Regd. & corporate office at Raja Prasadamu, 4tr floor, Wing-I, D.No.1-55, Masjid Banda Road, Kondapur, Hyderabad-sOO 084

¶12

Rep. by its Authorized officer

¶13

2.M/s.Indo Dutch Proteins Ltd., Rep. by S.Krishna Kumar, Director Regd. Office at 5A, Block B, Krishna Apartments, 8-3-324, Yellareddyguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-sOO 016.

¶14

Sri S.Krishna Kumar, S/o late Sri P.Sadagopan, Aged 65 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.89, Maple Town, Sun City, Bandlaguda,

¶15

Hyderabad-sOO 08O

¶16

i{€:;-
4ffi
Fg
* 150[IM ril.{ r.}?
-iWr"'fitrl

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Counsel for the Applicants : SriT.Sridhar Reddy Counsel for lst Respondent : Si V.Sethu Madhaua Rao Respondents No.2 &3 Reserued on : 11.O9.2025 Pronounced on : 15.1O.2025 Uploaded on : 15.10.2025

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Application is filed u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2OO2l challenging the Sale Notice dt. 13.1O.2023 issued by the lst Respondent for conducting auction of the schedule propert5r on 15.11.2023 and to declare the same as null and void.

¶21

c The averments made by the Applicants in brief are as follows:

¶22

Applicant No. 1 is the wife of Late Sri S.N. Rama Krishna and Applicants No.2&3 are her children. Smt. Sirisha Roy was the sister-in-law of Applicant No.1. Respondent No.3 is the brother,in-law of Applicant No.1 and brother of Smt. Sirisha Roy who expired on 16.05.2023. Applicants, Respondent No.3 and Smt. Sirisha Roy jointly inherited the schedule property. The schedule property was originally purchased by one Sri P.Sadagopan under Regd.sale deed dt.07.06.f 966 from Gemini Housing society and the said Sadagopan died in the year lgT4leaving behind his wife Smt.P.Revathi and three children as his legal heirs. Sri^{p.Sadagopan,s} elder son S.N. Rama Krishna passed way in-the year 2OO7 leaving behind his wife, the Applicant No ! and children, Applicants No.2&3 as his legal heirs and as such.lthey are entii b I lg'e share each in the property. Thereafter, on eiig,lriies, the App came to know that Respondent No.2&3 takeru'/ddsiness tbah from Co-Op. Bank Ltd. by offering the entire PTTTIH'ffi,B security as the title deeds of the schedule p were kept in ofthe Respondent No.2 and the

¶23

said Bank had assigned the debt in favour of the 1"t Respondent in the year 201 1. The Applicants and late Smt. Sirisha Roy filed a suit in O.S.No.a90l 13 on the file of Hon,ble II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking partition and separate possession and the said suit was decreed on 25.o3.2o15 and final decree in the said suit is pending for adjudication. In the meanwhile, the l"t Respondent affixed sale notice on the schedule propert5r fixing the date of the auction on 2z.ll.2ol3 without issuing any demand notice and possession notice. challenging the same, the Applicants, filed SA Z2Z l13 and the said SA was closed on the basis of the memo filed by the l"t Respondent. The lst Respondent again proceeded and conducted auction ofthe schedule propert5z and challenging the same, the Applicants and late Smt.Sirisha Roy filed SA g14/17 and the said SA was allowed by the Hon'ble DRT-II, Hyderabad vide orders dt.L6.o5.2o23 by setting aside the sale conducted by the r"t Respondent. Thereafter, the l"t Respondent again issued the impugned Sale Notice dt. 13. 10.2023 without issuing any prior notices. The rst Respondent failed to affix the possession notice and sale notice on the schedule property and also failed to publish the said notices in two leading newspapers. The 1st Respondent is not entitled to proceed with the auction of the entire property. Hence the SA.

¶24

¶25

The lst Respondent filed their Reply denying an the adverse allegations made in the sA and contended that in order dt. 16.0s.2o23 passed in sA 8141 17 filed by the Applicants, DRTJI, Hyderabad had categoricafly held that

¶26

" The 1 Respondent annexed copy of the Memorandum of deposit of title deed and guarantee deed executed by Mr.S.N. Ramakrishna, Krishna Kumar-2nd Respondent^"and Mrs. sireesha Roy when they created the mortgage over:th9 schedule properw to secure the roan sanctioned to M/s Indo Dutch Proteins 1995 whereas 13. Thus ttre security interest was validity of partition suit. The share of the

¶27

Applicants and 2"d Respondent in the schedule property would be subject to subsisting mortgage. In view of such documentar5r proof, the Applicants plea that mortgage was not validly created is not acceptable.".

¶28

¶29

In view of the nonservice notices to the Applicant No.3, the said SA was allowed. After disposal of SA No.814/ LZ, the lst Respondent issued fresh demand notice dt.31.0s.2o23 to the Applicants and the Applicants evaded to receive the said notice and the sarne was affixed on the schedule property and the same was published in newspapers. Thereafter the l"t Respondent issued possession notice dt.24.o9.2023 and the said notice was published in Business Standard and Namaste Telangana daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. After obtaining valuation report from the approved vlauer Mr.Ameenaiah and basing on the said report, the lst Respondent fixed the reserve price and issued 30 days notice dt.05.o9.2023 and sent the same to the Applicants and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers. Thereafter the lst Respondent issued Auction Notice dt.13. lo.2o23 and sent the said notice to the Applicants and the same was published in two daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. Thus, the rst Respondent has scrupulously followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing the statutory notices to the Applicants. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA-

¶30

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. Counsel for the l"t Respondent. Notice not taken against Respondents No.2&3 and so, claim against Respondents No.2&3 is dismissed. perused the material brought on record. . -' - r:'r:'

¶31

r:'r:'
sideration are
? 5 0[i 2U5

¶32

¶33

u. uLether the Applicants haue establi_sled ang ualid ground s for challenging tle Sale Notice dt.13.10.2023 issued bg tlrc lst Respondent against tlrc sctrcdule properlA?

¶34

ut. To what relief?

¶35

Point.ItIo.(if :-

¶36

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld. counsel for the lst Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶37

8' The specific contention of the Applicants is that the lst Respondent is not entitled to proceed against the entire schedule property as the Respondent No.3 is having only I /3 share in the property. Further, the rst Respondent wit-hout issuing any notices, straightaway issued the impugned sale notice dt. 13.10.2023 for conducing auction ofthe schedule property and so, the said sale notice is not legal and valid and liable to be set aside.

¶38

The lst Respondent contended that they have issued all the statutory notices to the Applicants under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2002 and Rules made thereunder and the l"t Respondent is having right to proceed against the entire secured asset as valid security interest is created in respect of the schedule property.

¶39

¶40

the copjr ofthe order dt. 16.05.2023 passed by d in the said order, it is categorically held that sclrcdule propertA utas created by Mr.S.N. 2na Respondent and Ms.Siressha Rog, 4tn loEeBAielffi to M/ s Indo Dutch Proteins Ltd. and in tte gear 7995 whereas the partition

¶41

suit tuas filed in 2013.Thus the seatrity interest was ualiditg created much pior to fiting of pariition suit and the share of the Appticants and 2nd Respondent in the schedure propertg ,tourd be subject to subsisting mortgage." The said order became linal as the Applicants have not challenged the said order by filing appeal. so, the 1st Respondent is having valid securit5r interest over the schedule property.

¶42

The lst Respondent in order to prove that they have followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2002 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the relevant notices to the Applicants, enclosed rerevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the material documents filed by the lst Respondent, it is clear that on 31.05.2023, the 1"t Respondent issued demand notice and the said demand notice was sent to the Applicants by Regd.post. In fact, the l"t Respondent published the said notice in Telugu and English newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the l^st Respondent. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicants. Thereafter the lst Respondent issued possession notice dt.24.o8.2o23 to the Applicants and others and the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd.post and the same was returned unserved. The said notice was affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs liled by the lst Respondent and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the lst Respondent. Thereafter the lst Respondent issued Pre-sale Notice dt.06.09.2023 to the Applicants and sent the same to the Applicants and the same was published in two daily newspaper),1liThbreafter, -the 1"t Respondent issued the impugned Sale N"ti"" aySki:iona+4\r1"ia .,or,". ." admittedly received by the Appl,"{f#Tne s.{ia,sare : ltg!,"" published in two daily newspapers licati grape as evlderyrcece d "by. -by- the *-.g="gp-f"" copies of pape r pub lication and also affixed on the ^ ""r,.{irp !!;^{n.of.f}i';J atifictea'inlit} ,.,t^{e copies of photographs filed by the t"t} e.S_^However, {flj$fhe course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for W5

¶43

the lst Respondent submitted that in pursuance of the impugned Sale Notice dt.13.1O.2O23, no auction was conducted by the lst Respondent against the schedule property. As no auction was conducted in pursuance of the impugned sale notice dt.13.10.2023, relief claimed by the Applicants in the SA becomes infructuous and nothing survives in the present SA for adjudication and there is no need to decide the validity or otherwise of the impugned Sale Notice. Hence, I am of the opinion that the relief claimed by the Applicants in the present SA becomes infructuous and the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

Point No.(tl)t

¶45

1i. In the result, SA 406 123 is dismissed as there are no merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶46

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶47

(Dctated to the P.s, transcibed. bg trer, cotected, signed. and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 15th dag of October,2025).

¶48

sd/-

¶49

(G. coPr CHANDI

¶50

PRESIDING OTFICER

¶51

lt
I 5 0rr 2U5

¶52

OP
n:",.ffi;tQ'

Smt. S.N. Vani Ram, and others v. Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitization Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. S.N. Vani Ram, and others v. Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitization Company 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Kethe Swathi versus Development Credit Bank Ltd.

P Bala Rathnam versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Ramireddy Nanda Kishore

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Vaddalapu Srilatha

kousar Sultahna versus Karnataka Bank Limited

M S Vasudeva Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India