Allowed

M.Raghupathi v. Indian Bank

DRT22 Jul 2025SA/473/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act filed by a borrower against the respondent bank. The court set aside securitisation measures, including the notice of sale, due to violations in serving demand and possession notices as per the SARFAESI Act and Handbook of Rules.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application is allowed and all securitisation measures, including the impugned notice of sale dated 11.11.2024, are set aside.

M.Raghupathi versus Indian Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL- II} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS^{THE TWENTYSECONDDAY OF JULY,2025}

¶3

PRESENT: SH.^{RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.COM.,L.LB. (HONS'), M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SECURITISATION^{APPLICATION NO.473OF 2024}

¶5

Between:

¶6

M. Raghu7athi^Naidu S/o M. Muni^Ratnam Age 54^years Occ: Business,^5-604/1 MubbinayaniPalli Daamala Cheruvu Dhittoor Dist.,^A.P.

¶7

......Applicant.

¶8

And

¶9

Indian Bank, Kallur^Branch Punganur Road,^Kallur Chittoor Dist.^{A.P. 517113} Rep by its Authorised^Officer. ....Respondent. : Mr, T' Ranadhir Singh. Counset for the Applicant counsel for Respondent : ExParte'

¶10

-:9-B-D-E-B 3-

¶11

The Applicant Rled the^present Securitisatlon Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^{(SARFAESI Act,} 2OO2) assailing the Notice of Sale 11.11.2024 issued by^the respondent against the SA schedule orop"n '('Y !--fi\69

¶12

SA,No.473/2024

¶13

The case of the Applicant as per the SA, in brief, is that applicant is the borrower and due to Covid.19 pandemic situation he suffered health issues. Applicant informed the same to the respondent from time to time. Applicant came to know of the securitisation proceedings initiated by the respondent bank when some persons claiming to be recovery agents along with intending purchasers came to the SA schedule property on lS.7l.ZOZ4 and furnished copies of possession notice dated Og.lO.2024, sale notice dated 71.tl.2024. Since the respondent bank has not served any of the said notices on the applicant at any point of time nor the notices have been affixed or published as per Rules. Respondent bank issued the impugned notice u/r g(6) dated 1L.77.2024 fixing the auction date as !6.12.2024, the impugned notice of sale is illegal, arbitrary and violation of provisions of the SARFAESI Act and also against the guidelines of RBI.

¶14

Despite notice, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent bank. Accordingly, respondent bank was set exparte vide docket order dated LO.lZ.2O24.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant prayed that orders may be passed based on records. perused the material placed on record,

¶16

As stated supra. the respondent bank remained ex-parte. The SA has been Rled alleging violation of relevant provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules in serving demand notice dated 04.03.2024 and possession ,qtice dated 0a.70.2024 including the impugned sale notice.^{/,4hvvt.z-,cz} /t/^{.'D:\t -}

¶17

SA.No.4zJ/2024

¶18

6' In the absence of any proof of compriance oF the procedure under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act in serving demand notice, Rules g(1) and g(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 in serving/affixing/publishing the possession notice u/s 13(4), ail subsequent measures are vitiated and accordingly, the present Securitisation Application deserves to be allowed.

¶19

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the present Securitisation Application is allowed setting aside all the securitisation measures including the impugned notice of sale notice dated 11.tt.2024.

¶20

B. In the result, SA is allowed by setting aside the notice of sale dated 11.11.2024.

¶21

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶22

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in Web Site.

¶23

(Dictate.d to the Steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2/d day ofJuly, 2025).

¶24

PY"e'o MESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

M.Raghupathi v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Raghupathi v. Indian 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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus v. Lokesh

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Gore Amarnath Reddy

Ms Tudor Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. versus Ifci Limited

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Kamal Enterprises

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Teja Sri Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus S Jagannath Reddy