Dismissed

Tandra Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank

DRT2 Jun 2025SA/46/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants approached DBT seeking to set aside an auction sale notice issued by the bank due to alleged non-compliance with notice issuance procedures regarding affixation and publication. The bank contended strict compliance was maintained. The court found the sale notice infructuous as no auction was conducted.

What did the court decide?

The Sale Notice dt.23.01.2023 is held infructuous; the application is dismissed; the Bank directed to proceed afresh with a fresh sale notice.

Tandra Impex Pvt. Ltd. versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATEDTHISTHE 2ND DAYOFJUNE, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

sA.No.46,/2C.23

¶4

l.Tandra Implexpvt. Ltd., Rep. by irs Director Plot No.63/A, pavani Homes, HUD-A, Enclave, Journalist Colony, Jubilee Hitts, Hyderabad_sO0 03-C.

¶5

2,Mr.T. Ramana Rao, S/o late Sri Rama Rao,

¶6

^{$:9,q? years, R/o H.No.7_6_208(new),}

¶7

6-5- L7 I 1 (old), SewarMothe, Jagithyal-505327.

¶8

. . . Applicants

¶9

And

¶10

I .The Authorized officcr Punjab National Bank Ltd., Circle Sastra, plot No.3, .^{Regency plaza,MaitriviharArea,} Ameerpet, Hyderabad-SOO 03g.

¶11

Punjab national Bank, Rep. by its Chief Manager Srinagar Colony Main, Main Road, Srinagar colony, Hyderabad-500 073.

¶12

.... Respondents

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant

¶14

Counsel for the Respondents

¶15

Si Abhag Singh Sn Ii/. Y. Subbaraju

¶16

u/s.77 of the SARFAESI Act, dt.23.O1.2023 issued by the 6r"t 0J,6|p1py,a auction of the schedule property and void. A*W

¶17

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶18

The l"tApplicant is a company engaged in thebusiness of trading of stones and granite blocks whereas the Applicant No.2 is the owner of the schedule property. The l "r Applicant availed loan from the Respondent and the 2"a Applicant created mortgage against the scheduie property. Without considering the Moratorium during Covid- 19, the Respondent issued demand notice dt. 16.09.2020 by declaring the loan account as NpA on 31.03.2020. To the said demand notice, the lstApplicant submitted a representation. The l stApplicant also filed Writ Petition No.237681 2O2O before the Hon,ble High Court of Telangana but the same was dismissed.The Respondent has not served possession notice and the said possessionnotice was not affixed on the schedule property and also not published in two daily newspapers. The Respondent Bank has not complied with Rule 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and so, the Respondent Bank is not entitled to proceed for conducting auction of the schedule property pursuant to the sale notice dt.23.O1.2023. Hence the SA.

¶19

¶20

The Respondentsfiled Reply by denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA. It is contended that the 1st Applicant availed loan facilities from the Respondent Bankwhereas the Applicant No.2 stood as guarantor and created mortgage inrespect of the schedule property. Thereafter the Applicants committed default inrepaying the loan dues and so, the Bank issued demand notice dt.I6.O9.2O2O and after receipt of the said demand notice, the l"tApplicarif.:ddclressed a letter dt.24.ll.2o2o stating that the objections submitted.by them vide letter dt.3o. 10.2020 may be ignored and, that they,,would close the account at the earliest.

¶21

t *#z

¶22

demand notice issued by the Bank but the said writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter,the Respondent bank issued possession notice dt.26.04.2022 to the Applicants and the said possession notice was published in two daily newspapers and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter, the Respondent bank issued pre_sale notice for redemption of the secured assets but however the Applicants have not paid any amounts, and so, thc Authorized officer of the Bank finally issued E Auction Sale Notice 23.01.2023 fixing the auction of the schedule property on 14.O2.2023 however, the said auction was unsuccessful. Hence there are no merits in the SA and the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

¶24

Heard Ld. Counsel for theApplicants and Ld.Counsel for Respondent Bank and perused the material brought on record.

¶25

¶26

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,_

¶27

i) Whether the Applicants haue established ang ualid ground.s

¶28

for^challenging the Sate Notice d.t.23.01.2023 issued bg the Respondent Bank for conducting auction of the schedule propertg?

¶29

ii) To what relieJ?

¶30

Polnt No.li)t

¶31

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants unsel for the Respondent Bank reiterated their . -,, ,i ,-4i.-. 6rc-;- ti.,? -^.:Y..b"- "r{-r as stated supra. :sr d1 ! : . There-is no d regarding the fact that the l stApplicant Respondent Bank whereas the 2nd Applicant w#

¶32

stood as guarantor and created mortgage in respect of the schedule property in security to the loan and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the loan account was classified as NpA. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.16.O9.202O u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2002 and the said notice was admittedly received by the Applicants. But the specific contention of the Applicants is that the Applicants have not received the impugned possession notice and sale notice and the said notices were not affixed on the schedule property nor published in two leading newspapers and so, the said noticesare liable to bc sct asidc.

¶33

¶34

Per contra, Respondent Bank contended that the Bank has strictly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing all the relevant notices to the Applicants.

¶35

To substantiate their contentions, the Respondent Bank filed material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that on 24.11.2O2O, the Managing Director of the 1st Applicant company addressed a letter stating that they received the demand notice dt. 16.09.2020 issued by theRespondent Bank and thereafter they submitted a letter dt.30. 10.2020 raising objections and the said objections maybe

¶36

ignored and treated as withdrawn and also assured that they would repay the loandues at the earliest. The Respondent Bank filed copy of the possessionnotice dt.26.O4.2O22 issued bv the

¶37

of the sch-edule property and the said notice Applicants as evidenced by the signature of n the office copy of the said notice. Infact, copies of postal acknowledgements of the said possession notice and the said

¶38

possession notice was published in two da,y newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Bank and the said notice was also affixed on the schedure property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Bank. Thus the Respondent bank has dury complied with Rure g(1)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 in issuing the possession notice. So far as the impugned Sale Nodce dt.23.01.2023 is concerned, no auction was conducted by the Respondent Bank in pursuance of the said sare notice and so, the said sale notice becomes infructuous and nothing survives in the sA for adjudication as there is no need to decide the varidity or otherwise of the impugned sare Notice dt.23.0 1.2023.Hence, I am of the opinion that the relief claimed by the Applicant in the present sA becomes infructuous and the sA is liable to be dismissed' The Respondent Bank is directed to proceed afresh for conducting sare of the schedule property by issuing fresh sare notice by strictly following the provisions of sARFAEsT Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder.

¶39

potnt No.lit):-

¶40

In the result, SA 46/2023 is dismissed.

¶41

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

¶42

13' communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶43

'?::'"';:r'lr'!i,r';t^{'itt,scnbedby her, c.rrec:terl,signedutul} ltrctttorrt.e,cl by nLe irt the opert courr o, this tLte

¶44

..,. i ,,:iiyr-
i,/' "'bi<br>6r !."e' tA <br>JUN 2025 *
-r
5v'r
r\ r.:,'
we * 02
i{;:frw

¶45

DRr-l,^xvorRnaao.

¶46

PRESIDING OFFICETi_^{(c. coPr} ""i$fi

Tandra Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tandra Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank

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 Mr. P. Prem Kumar

Sri K Chandrasekhar versus Icici Bank Limited

Athiya Begum versus Bank of Baroda

Ms Brahmaputra Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Ms Coverit Flair versus Ms Indusland Bank Limited

Mergu Yellappa versus Punjab National Bank