Dismissed

Patlolla Venkateshwara Reddy v. Bank of Baroda

DRT5 May 2025SA/41/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the applicant challenged auction notices and proceedings for physical possession initiated by the bank. The court held that since auctions were not conducted and the warrant expired, the relief sought had become infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The applicant's application challenging the auction notices and possession proceedings was dismissed as the relief sought became infructuous.

Patlolla Venkateshwara Reddy versus Bank of Baroda — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MAY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No. 1 /2022

¶5

Sri P.Venkateswar Reddy(on behalf of late P.Pushpa) S/o Narayan Reddy, R/o H.No.28- 17812, Raithu Colony, Near Maisamma'l'emple, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District-5 O92 I 6.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

Bank of Baroda, Rep. by its Authorized officer 6-l-84, 1"t floor, Khusru .Iung IIouse, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad-SOO 004

¶9

RespondentBank

¶10

Counselfor the Applicant : Sri Abhay Singh Counsel for the Respondent : Sn TiuikramChitturu

¶11

-: QB D-.E_R :

¶12

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARI.-AESI Act, '2OO2, challenging the Auction Sale Notices dt.08.03.2022 and 27.O5.2O22 issued bythe Respondent bank for conducting auction of l-he schedule property and also the proceedings initiated by the Bank for taking physical possessio!_o.l the schedule prbperty pursuant to the orders of CMM, R.R. lare the same as illegal. A 2. 'l'he averments ln lrir* tha[: feir a 'l'he Applicant availed loan from the Rcspondcnt bank. Ilu markcting, the Applicant sustained lossin thc bus made representations to

¶13

the Government for providing marketingfacilities but the Government has not provided any such facility. Later the farmers approached the Hon'ble High Court and filed W.P.No.28O74l2016 seeking waiver of the loans and obtained interim order against the banks. The Government of Telangana inview of the representationmade bythe EMU farmers, issued an order corrslituting a committee to take decision on the request of the IIMU farmers and suggest^possible measures. But the Government of Tclangana has not taken any steps for waiving the loan of the EMU farmers. In the meanwhile, the Respondent bank issued notice :ulr 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) llulcs, 2OO2 on 08.03.2022 for conducting auction of the schedule property on 24.03.2022. However, no conduction was conducted on 24.O3.2022. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank^issued another Auction Sale Noticc dt.27.O5.2O22 by fixing the date^of auction on 17.06.2022. Subsequcntly, the Respondent bank^filed Crl.MP.No.25l2022 and obtaincd orders lrom the^Ld.CMM, R.R.District for appointment of advocatc commissioner for^taking physical possession of the schedule property. IIence the SA.

¶14

The Respondent Bankfilcd their lteply Statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA. It is contended that theApplicant having availed loan from the Respondent bank, committed defaultⁱⁿ repaying the loan and So, the Respondent Bank issued demand notice u/s l3(2) of the SAI?I.-AIDSI Act, 2OO2 on 16.12.2015 and thereafter issued possession notice dt. l.4.09.2021 and the^said possession notice was published in daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter the^{Respondent bank} issued Noticedt.0T .1O.2021 ul r 8(6)ol Security Interest^{(Enforcement)}

¶15

Rules, sequently,,i issued Auct.ion N<-rtice dt.08.03.2022 frfs ro, .yft6@{oYi}+ffi1the scheclule property on 24.03.2022 butthe "^i($.,io,, ffi" "";"ry\stul^Sub"":i,,rl ]1. _:"ooloent Bank i;;,iia j."ji;h5i" ss\l Nofice dt 27 .os.2o22 fixing the date^of j;]1"" U'$ l$loffirz,gtfl*"+., the said auction was also not t&''"1* **r{r*H,rH/^z i#1 ;L-_::

¶16

successful for want of bidders. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank obtained orders from rhc Ld. cMM, R.R. District lor taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner and the same was not materialized and the said cMM warrant also expired.Accordingly, Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the sA.

¶17

4' Heard Ld. Counsel for ttrc Applicanl. and Lcl. Counscl for Respondent bank. Perused the material brought on rccorcl.

¶18

Now, the points that arise lor consideration are,

¶19

whether the Applicant has established" ana ualid. grounds for challenging theAuction sale Notices d"t.o8.03,2022 and 27.05,2022 issued by the Respond.ent Bank and. also the steps iruitiated by the lSank for taking physical possessfon of the schedule property u/ s 14 of the.SAI?/,X/]S- I Act, 2002 ?

¶20

iil To u-that relieJ?

¶21

Point No.(i):-

¶22

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶23

There is no dispute regarding the f4ctthat the Applicant availed loan from the nk and created mortgage in respect of the after committed default in repayment of lnrn',ldnlt=. :i* * 8. 'r'h lIlc _0⁵ contentlon^ilAY A[5 dF c Applicant is that in view of the }r los in the II ing, thc Applicant could not repay thc the Government of Telangana has to 3

¶24

provide relief to the Applicants but the Government is delaying the matter.

¶25

1'hc Applicant has n<>t challcngcd thc derrrand notice and possession notice and also pre-sale notice issued bythe Respondent Bank. In the present SA, the Applicant is only challengingthe impugned Auction sale Notices dt.08.o3.2022 and 27.o5.2022 issued by the Bank and also the steps initiatcd by thc []ank for taking physical possession of the schedule property uls l4 of thc SARI'AIISI AcL,2OO2.

¶26

In the Reply filed by the Respondent Bank, the RespondentBank clearly stated that no auction was cr>nducted by the Bank in respect oI thc schcdule propccrly in pursuancc of thc Auction Sale Notices dt.08.03.2022 and 27.o5.2022 and so, rhc said Auction Sale Notices dt.08.03.2o22 and 27.O5.2O22 became infructuous. So far as the proceedings before ld.CMM, R.R.District are concerned, the warrant issued by thc Ld.CMM, R.R. l)ist,rict lor appr>intmcnt of advocate commissioner for taking physicai posscssion of the schedule property was expired as tirc advocate commissioner could not take physical possession of the schedule property. So, for taking physical possession of the schedule property, the Respondent Bank is expected to approach the conccrned CMM again by <>btaining frcsh warrant for appointment of advocate commissioncr u/s 14 of the SARF-AESI Act,2OO2. Even for conducting auction of thc schedule property also, the Respondent Bank has to issue fresh auction sale notice as per the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2002 and llules made thcrcundcr. So, at prcsctr-rL, nothing survivcs in thc SA for adjudication ancl so, thc SA is liable to be dismissed as the relie pplicant has become infructuous. So this point \l, 4

¶27

Ppiat Ne.ltr):-

¶28

In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed there are no merits.

¶29

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

¶30

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶31

(Dictated to the p.s transcribed. by her, corrected., signed. and. pronounced" by me in the open court on this the SILL day of MoA, 202i1.

¶32

sd/(G. coPr CHAND) RESIDING OFFICER

¶33

*
ha

¶34

Patlolla Venkateshwara Reddy v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patlolla Venkateshwara Reddy v. Bank of Baroda

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 Sri. Muttagi Srisailam

Smt Koneru Kasi Ratnam versus Indian Bank

Sri Shankar San Sahoo Rajputh versus Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sri. Shaswanth Kumar Gampala

Patlolla Venkateshwara Reddy versus Bank of Baroda

Mr Redda Boina Gopinath versus the Sircilla Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.