An application under S. 17 SARFAESI Act challenging an auction sale notice was dismissed as infructuous because the proposed auction had already been stopped. The applicant was directed to seek relief via a fresh auction process.
Application dismissed as infructuous; directed to proceed afresh for sale of schedule property by issuing fresh sale notice.
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.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- IAT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 22NO DAY OF MAY, 2025
PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER
sA.No.443,/2c23
Vinayaka Raju, S/o late P.Gopal, R/o H.No.6-2-2761A, Sri Nagar Colony, Hyderabad Road, Nalgonda Town &District
.. . Applicant
And
1 . State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2od floor TSRTC Bus Stand, Koti, Hyderabad.
Rep.by its Authorized officer
Rep. by its Branch Manager
.... Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant
Counsel for the Respond_ent Bank
Si V.V. Ramana
Sri P.V. Saty anarag ana
-:ORDER:-
- This application is rrred by the Applicant u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, chatlenging the Auction sare Notice dt.,1.1 r.2023 issued by the Respondent Bank for conducting auction of t-he schedule propert5r on 08.12.2023 and to de9!rynfrreie3e as i11egaI and void. //A:f:u$l.
rhe Apprican,';;r.J rffi",S :.""r.,.ent Bank and created ,oo'ts"ffiffi.,::W*r#)Fdue propertv. But due to Sur#
sA 443/23
Covid-19 pandemic, the Applicant could not repay the loan amounts due' so, the Respondent Bank initiated recovery proceedings and filed O.A.35l2O2l and obtained exparte order dt.09.09.2O2l.The Respondents claimed to have crassified the loan account as NpA and issued demand notice and possession notice but the said notices are not served on the Applicant.The Respondent Bank also issued Auction sare Notice dt.o 1.1 r.2023 ulr s(6) of Security Interest (enforcement) Rules, 2002 fixing the date of auction of the schedule property on 18.12.2023 and the impugned sale notice was neither published in two leading newspapers nor affixed on the schedule property. Hence the SA.
3'
The RespondentBank firedRepry by denying alr the adverse alregations made in the sA' It is contended that the Applicant having availed roan from the Respondent Bank, failed to pay the outstanding dues and So, the loan account was classified as NpA and thereafter the Respondent Bank filed o.A.gsl2o2r before this Hon,ble Tribunal and the said OA was allowed on 01.06.2022 and Recovery certificate was issued in favour of the Bank.The Respondent Bank also issued demand notice dt.02.12.2o21 to the Applicant and the same was served on the Applicant. Thereafter the Respondent bank issued possession notice d1.03.06.2022 for taking possession of the schedure property and the said notice was published in two leading newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. Subsequently, the Respondent Bank issued Sale notice dt.O1.11.2023 fixing the date of auction on 18.12.2023 and the said sare notice was dury served on the Applicant and the said sale notice was affixed on the schedure property and i published in two leading newspapers. However, ted by this Tribunal, the proposed auction ce of the impugned sale notice dt.01 . 1 ar* merits in the SA and the SA is liable
sA 443/23
Polnt No.ll):-
d *nts, ndent Bank issued demand notice it r3 "HJ.ffi,
dt.02. 1.1 and tice dt.03.06.2022 and the said a
1'
sAM3/23
notices were sent to the Applicant through Regd.postand served on the Applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgments filed by the Bank. The said possession notice was published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Bank and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Bank. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant received the Auction Sale Notice dt.01.l1,2023 but however, no auction was conducted by the Respondent Bank in pursuance of the said sale notice. So, the said sale notice becomes infructuous and nothing survives in the sA for adjudication as there is no need to decide the validity or otherwise of the impugned Sale Notice dt.01.11.2023. Hence, I am of the opinion that the relief claimed by the Applicant in the present SA becomes infructuous and the sA is riable to be dismissed. The Respondent Bank is directed to proceed afresh for conducting sale of the schedule property by issuing fresh sale notice by duly following the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder.
Potnt No.(iil:-
t2. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.
(Dclated-lo the P-s tronscribed by her, coftected., signed and. pronounced ba me it the open court on this the 2N dag oJ Maa, 2025).
sdl(G.q)Pr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER
dfl
o#-=;l?m'snasao'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant established valid grounds for challenging the Sale Notice issued by the Respondent Bank for conducting auction?
To what relief?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vinayaka Raju
State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch
State Bank of India, Ravindra Nagar colony branch
GUMMADI GOPICHAND
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
