The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to quash an auction sale notice and other enforcement actions under the SARFAESI Act, holding that applicants had foregone their right to re-agitate issues raised in a previously dismissed application.
The application was dismissed in its entirety; interlocutory applications stood closed.
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 THEDEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL ' II AT HYDERABAD
DATEDTHIS THE TWENTYFIFTH DAY OF ]ULY'2025
PRESENT:SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.COM', L.LB. (HONS.), M.A. PRESIDINGOFFICER
SECURITISATIONAPPLICATIONNO. 488 OF 2024
Between:
Union Bankof India 1-L-12-73,Main Branch Beri Street,TiruPathi-517501 .. -...Respondent. Rep by its AuthorisedOfficer. Counsel forthe APPlicants : Mr. M, MaharshiViswaraj. Counsel forResPondent fron
sa,4Aa/2024
.:ORDER:-
17 of the securitization Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement o, ,",'no y Interest Act' 2002 (hereinafter
referred to ", "senrnes' Act 2002") assairing e-auction sare norice dated oo.r,r.ror' fixing the date of auction as
13.12.2024 anO aft otn,l initiated against the
Apptication schedure o.orif iot""o'ngs
covid.lg pandemic .ur",t 'tr Applicants requested ror r"'' ''outt"dapplicantsbusiness' respondent (erstwhie ^"ilil' :',lli ijJ;:: ::.:::j:; positively citing ongoing merger process with the Union Bank of India. Respondent bank divided the loan account by extending a new credit fi under UGE.L' Respondent
bank initiated r".rr,,,.u,o""'t' notces u/s 13(2) and J.;T:::H::JJ:'"^::,'"# Applicants challenged sale dated 01'07'2023 by filing
sA.327 ot 2023. Appricants
on 07.08.2023 o, o"oo.,,,,jo[0.]-;:r:ffi:i1 il:X#'::: On the assurance of th€ appricants withdrew *" ro rr'ri!",'rll ill.i.X!., .".*Ijjl; issued notices under Rules 6(2) and g(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 without following due process of law. Issuing such noticesThhighu objectionable
uYn'-
sa.4aal2o24
and unwarranted.In fact, applicants' loan account does not fall within thepurview of NPA as the securedasset is either sub-standard ordoubtfulor loss asset The noticeshave not been served onthe applicant No.2,affixed at conspicuous place of secured asset orpublished in two leading newspapers as stipulated underRules 8(1) and 8(2) of the security Interest(Enforcement) Rules, 2002.ClubbingOD account with UGECL account iscontrary to the RBI guidelines' Respondent bankviolated the provisionsofSections 13(2),13(34), 13(4),31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, Rules 8 (1) and 8(2) of SecurityInterest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002' Respondent undervalued thesecuredproperty and failed to comply with theprovisions of Rule 8(5). The value of property is more than Five Crore rupees as againstthe outstanding dues ofRs.70,48,716l-.
(1,/
sA.4aa/2024
Whether the Applicants made out any volid ground for quashing the e-quction sale notice dated 04.1 1.2024 issued by the respondent b:rk under rhe provisiow of Securitistttion Act?
i, To what reliefl
Point No. (i):
- A perusal of pleadings in the SA.327 of 2023 filed earlier by the applicants cha[enging the sare notice dated 0r.07.2023 reveal that applicants filed the said SA raising the same issues as in the case of the present SA. However, applicants failed to prosecute the SA and hence the same ended in dismissal for default. Hence, it is to be construed that the applicants had foregone their right to pursue the issues in the SA.327 of 2023. Therefore, having foregone the right to agitate the issues raised in their previous 5A.327 of 2023, they are not permitted to re-agitate the same issues for enquiry in the present SA afresh. Further, the present SA in so far as the issues relating to auction sale proceedings concerning with violation of Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 till the is suance "dw^;rl" notice dated
sa.4aal2024
04.LI.2Q24 challengedin the present SA are concerned, the said issues need no considerationfor adjudication of this SA in view of the auctionproceedingshaving not been conducted. Accordingly, the SA to thatextentbecomesinfructuous and is liable to be dismissed.
Point No,(ii):
(Dictofed to the Steno, signed ond pronounced by me in the open couft on this the 25'\ doy of )uly, 2025). .1 ^6 Ily!.9,/^-r,!Vr'
-rg,-
(RAMISHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
3 issues framed by the court
Whether applicants have valid grounds for quashing the auction sale notice dated 04.11.2024 issued by the respondent bank.
What relief, if any, should be granted.
Whether the issues regarding violation of Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 need consideration in the present application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Pasuarthi Silks
Mrs. P. Sravanthi
Union Bank of India
Rameshwar Koth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
