Dismissed

Patlolla Venkateshwara Reddy v. Bank of Baroda

DRT5 May 2025SA/42/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitization application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging an auction notice, the Presiding Officer dismissed the application as infructuous after the auction was cancelled by the bank and proceeds refunded to the purchaser.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed as infructuous due to cancellation of auction and refund of proceeds; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Patlolla Venkateshwara Reddy versus Bank of Baroda — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED-T'HIS I I-]E 5]II DAY Otr MAY, 2C-25

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.42/2022

¶5

Sri PatlollaVenkateswar Reddy S/o Narayan Reddy, R/o tl.No.28-1.7812, Raithu Colony, Near MaisammaTemple, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District- 5 O92¹ 6.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

Bank of Baroda, Rep. by its Authorized officer ROSAR Branch 6-l-84, 1"t floor, Khusru.Jung F{ouse, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad-5O0 004

¶9

Respondenttsaruk

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Sn L. Kishna Kumar Reddy

¶11

Counsel for the Respondent ; Sn N.Manohar^Reddy

¶12

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17^{of the SARFAESIAct,} 2OO2, challenging the Auction Sale^{Notice dt.08.03.2022 issued by the} Respondcnt bank for conducrtillg auction^{of thc schedule propertyand} to declare the same as illegal.

¶13

'l'hc averments made i n, in arc that: riMQr^{S,rF,4tr,S",0:} ilcd loan from the Thc Applicant t.ook Respondent bank. Bu lack of pro keting, the Applicant sustained loss in the ade representations to facilities but the Lhc Governmcnt for:^p ting

¶14

Government has not provided any such facility. Later the farmers approachcd ttrc I'lon'blc IIigh Court and filcd W.P.No.28O74l2016 sceking waivcr of thc loans and obtaincd interim order against the banks. The Government of Telangana in view of the representation made by the EMU farmers, issued an order constituting a committee to take decision on the request of the EMU farmers and suggest possiblc mcasurcs. Ilut the GovcrnmenL o[ Tclangana has not taken any steps for waiving the loan of the EMU farmers. In the meanwhile, the Respondent bank issued notice ulr 6(2)&,8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 on 08.03.2022 for conducting auction of the schedule property on 24.O3.2022. IIencc the SA.

¶15

Thc Respondcnt Rank filed their IRcply Statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA. It is contended that theApplicant having availed loan from the Respondent bank, committed default in rcpaying thc loan and So, thc licspondcnt l3ank issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SAI?I,'AFISI Acl., 2OO2 on 16.12.2015 and thereafter issued possession notice dt.14.09.2021 and the said possession notice was published in daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter the Respondent bank issucd Noticc dt.07. 1O.2O21 u I r 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2oO2 and subsequently, issued Auction Notice dt.08.03.2022 f<>r conducting auction of the schedule property on 24.03.2022. On 24.03.2022, the tsank conducted auction and Mrs.KatakamSavithri Gupta became successful bidder for an amount ol Rs.74,98,000/- in rt:spcct of thc schr:dulc property, Accordingly, Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶16

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for Respondent
bank. Perused the,|/r! ma 'm T\ rccord.
5. Now, the points t fl 1r ri sc- fo1 cdh side ra ti ,
ii; 0 s ilAY 216 :i
WW

¶17

Whether the Applicant has established ana ualid grounds for challengirug the Auction Sale Notice dt.08.O3.2022 issued bg the Respondent l3aruk for conducting auction of the schedule property on 24.03.2022?

¶18

i, To uthat relieft

¶19

Point No.lil:-

¶20

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

¶21

There is no dispute regarding the factthat the Applicant availed loan from the Respondent Bank and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property and thcrcaftcr committed default in repayment of loan dues.

¶22

The specific contention of the Applicant is that in view of the losssustained in the EMU farming, the Applicant could not repay the loan outstanding dues and the Government of Telangana has to provide relief to the farmers but the Government is delaying the matter.

¶23

The Applicant has not challenged the dcmand notice, possession notice anq4scFFrcsftrlc noticc issued by the Respondenl. Bank. In challenging the impugned [',,fffi nT$fu"""ffi:il:"*:: by the Bank for conducting auctrpn of the sthedul i:,l ii-,-J^{0 5 ilAI2ges} * t 10. for the nt Fiank during the course of arguments uring the pendencyof the SA, the auction purch Bank to cancel the auction and refund the 3

¶24

money and accordingly, the Respondent tsank cancelled the auction and relunded the moneyto the auction purchaser. So even though, auction was conducted by the Rcspondent lfank in pursuance of the impugned Auction Sale Notice dt.08.03.2022, the said auction was cancelled in view of the request made by the auction purchaser.So, for conducting auction of the schedule property, the Respondent Bank has to issue fresh auction sale notice as per the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARITADSI /\ct.,2oo2 anci Rules made thereunder. So, at prcsent, nothing survives in the sA for adjudication and so, the SA is liable to be dismissed as the relief claimed by the Applicant has bccome infructuous. So this point is answered accordingly.

¶25

Point No.(iil:-

¶26

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

¶27

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to cos1,s.

¶28

Communicate a copy of this ordcr t.o thc partics conccrncd.

¶29

(Dictated to the P.S transcribed. by her, corrected, signed and pronounced. by me in the open court on this the Sth da!/ of May, 2025).

¶30

sd/(G. GOPr CHANDI RESIDING OFFICER

¶31

0 5 !i[Yffi

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.