Application challenging a sale notice under the SARFAESI Act was dismissed as infructuous because no auction was conducted in pursuance of the notice due to interim orders.
Appeal dismissed; interlocutory petitions disposed of; no costs.
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.
INTHE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I ATHYDERABAD
DATEDTHISTHE ITTH DAYOFDECEMBER. 2025
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER
sA.No.435,/2c.23
Trinetra Jewellers Rep. by itsproprietor Mr.Vikas Kumar Agarwal s/o late Vishnu Kumar Agarwal, aged 47 years, H.No.5 _g_48/2,' opp. Shan Bagh Hotel, Main Road, Bashirbagh, Hyderabad-S0O O2g
... Applicant
Versus
1.The Authorized officer Canara Bank, Basheerbagh branch, D No.9-6-S9/4/ 1A, Avanti Nagar, Opp. Skylark Apartments, Hyderabad-500 029.
!.p.ty its Chief Manager, Basheerbagh Branch, D.No.-9-6-S9/4/ tA, Avanti Nagar, Opp.S}rylark Apartments, Hyderabad-S0O 029
. .. Respondents
Counsel for the Appticant : SiAbhag singh Counselfor Respond.ent : Mrs. Tarangini pisipati
Reserued on :17.11.2O25 Pronounced on : 17.12.2025 Uploaded to the uebsite 17.12.2025 W i. This Application J,. JJ,9t$ Yttization and Reconstruction of F rnancial Assets and.l , l<sup>''l cf Security Interest Act,2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,20O2).cha i'Notice dt. 18.10.2023 issued bv
the Respondent Bank for conducting auction of the schedule propertSr on 30. I f .2023 and to declare the same as null and void.
2' The averments made by the Applicant in brief are as follows:
The Applicant is a proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor engaged in the business of making ornaments and jewellery. The Applicant ava,ed cc roan of Rs'50 lakhs from the Respondent bank which was subsequently renewed to an extent of Rs. l.60 crores. Due to Covid_l9, the Applicant could not pay some instalments. The Applicant pursued the matter wit, the Respondent Bank for disposal of application schedule property and the buyer had paid an amount of Rs.25 lakhs as advance and the same was remitted to the loan account. However, the said buyer has not paid the balance amount and instead, Iiled a suit for specific performance and the same is pending. In the meanwhile, the Respondent bank invoked the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and, issued the impugned Sale Nolice dt.lg.lo.2)23 fixing the date of auction on 30'17'2023 without following the procedure. The Respondent bank failed to serve demand notice as mandated u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Respondent bank failed to follow Rule 8(S)(6X&)&9(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 . The reserve price fixed by the bank against the schedule property is very Iow even compared to the valuation report given by valuer of the Bank. Hence the SA.
3' The Respondent bank fired their Repry denying alr the adverse anegations made in the sA and contended that the Appricant availed loan facilities from the Respondent by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule property and thereafter commi ult in repaying the loan dues. So, the loan -)',:.:: as NPA on 28.09.2022 as per the guidelines oiRBl'q4d initiated proceedings under the provisions 20:02 demand notice dt. l3. t O.2o22uls l3(2) said notice was served on the Applicant.
the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd. post and the same was published in Mana Telangana and financial Express daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter the bank issued Sale Notice dt' lg' 10'2023 for conducting auction of the schedule propert5r on 30'11'2023 and the said notice was affixed on the schedule property and also published in two daily newspapers. Before issuing the said notice, the bank obtained varuation report from the valuer of the Bank and basing on the same, fixed the reserve price in respect of the schedule property. Thus, the Respondent Bank has duly followed the procedure prescribed under the provisions of sARFAESI Act,2oo2and Rules made thereunder in issuing the impugned sale notice for conducting auction of the schedure property. Accordingly, Ld. counsel prayed to dismiss the SA.
iii. To what relief?
Potnt No.lll:-
in repaying the loan dues. After
pplicant as NpA, the Bank issued the
impugned Sale Notice dt. 18. 10.2023 for conducting auction of the schedule property and challenging the same, the Applicant filed the present SA.
8' The specific contention of the Applicant is that without issuing demand notice and prior to sale notice, the Bank issued the impugned Sale Notice dt'18'10'2023 for conducting auction of the schedule property without foll0wing the procedure contemplated under the provisions of sARFAESI Act'2002 and Rules made thereunder and so, the said sare notice is not legal and valid and liable to be set aside.
- But the Respondent contended that they have issued all the statutory notices to the Appricant under the provisions of sARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder.
10' To substantiate their contention, the Respondent Bank fi,ed material documents arong with the Repry fired by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Bank issued demand notice dt.13.1 O.2O22u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the same to the Applicant through Regd'Post and the said notice was received by the Applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgments fired by the Bank. when there is no response to the said demand notice, the Respondent issued possession Notice dt.27.02.2O2A and sent the said notice to the Applicant through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Bank. The published in English and Telugu daily newspa e copies of paper publication filed by the Bank affixed on the schedule property as depi s filed by the Bank. Thus the Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enli demand notice and possession contemplated procedure, the Bank
issued the Sale Notice dt. 18. lo.2o23 for conducting auction of the schedule property and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd' post and the said notice was published in two da,y newspapers and also affixed on the schedule propert5r.
Polnt No.(fi)r
(Dictated to
court on her, conected, signed and. pronounced bg me in th.e open @er,2025).
ore m5 sd/(c. coPI CItaNDl PRESIDING OI.FICEI{ s<-t s nesistra)
