Applicant challenged Sale Notice under SARFAESI Act noting procedural lapses. Tribunal observed no auction was conducted due to interim stay. Application held infructuous and dismissed. Bank directed to issue fresh notice.
Application dismissed; no order as to costs; direction to Respondent to issue 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- I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 1'I TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
sA.No.68,/2024
M/s Nanditha Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., Rep. by its Director Smt.Tallam Sridevi, W/o late Tallam Venkateswara Rao, Aged 55 years, Occ:business, R/o F.No.505, Silver Springs Apartments Jayabheri park, Kompally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District-sOO 0 14. ... Applicant
Versus
Canara Bank, Rep. by its Authorized oflicer Regional Office, H.No.3-5-168 11234, l"t floor, Opp.Shanti Talkies, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad-S0O 029. . .. Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : Si D.Rahautlu Counselfor Respond.ent : Ms. Sangeeta Jaiswal Reserued on : 07.1 1 .2O25 Pronounced on : 11.12.2025 Uploaded to tlrc tuebsite on : 11.12.2025
ORDER
.r'properties on 26.02.2024 and to declare the same as null and void. ;"'
by the Applicant in brief are as follows:
The Applicant availed CC loan of Rs.90 lakhs and GECL Loan of Rs. 1g lakhs in the year 2o2l from the Respondent bank for development of their business and created mortgage against the schedule properties as security for the said loan facilities. Suddenly, some employees of the Respondent bank visited the schedule property and informed the Applicant about the sale of the schedule properties and when the Applicant visited the Bank, they have given copy of the sale notice. The Respondent bank without issuing any prior notices such as demand notice and possession notice and without following Rule 8(l)(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2002, issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.2S.Ot.2O24 and the said notice was neither published in two leading newspapers nor affixed on the schedule properties. The Respondent bank failed to follow Rule 8(5x6x&)&9(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The reserve price fixed by the bank against the schedule properties is very low. Hence the SA.
J. The Respondent bank filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the sA and contended that the Applicant availed various loan facilities from the Respondent by creating mortgage in respect of the schedule properties and thereafter committed default. The present Director of the Applicant is running business after the demise of Mr.venkateswara Rao, her husband but not made the required payments into the loan accounts. so, the Respondent Bank declared the 10an accounts of the Applicant as NPA on 22.12.2022 and issued demand notice dt.28. 1 2.2022 and sent the same to the Applicant through Regd. post and the Applicant received the said notice. The said demand notice was also published in Telugu and English daily newspapers. Thereafter, the Respondent issued notice dt. 14.03.2023 and the said notice was received by the ;"'rA the same was published in Business Standard and newspapers. Thereafter the bank issued Redemption for giving an opportunity to the Applicant to redeem properties and the said notice was received by the
Applicant. Later, the bank issued Sale Notice dt.25.OL.2024 for conducting auction of the schedule properties on 26.02.2024. Challenging the said Sale Notice dt.25.O1.2O24, the Applicant frled the present SA and in view of the interim stay order passed by the Hontle Tribunal, auction was not conducted by the Bank and so, the relief claimed by the Applicant in the SA becomes infructuous. Accordingly, Ld. counsel prayed to dismiss the SA.
Point trIo.lif:-
t/z/ -"''1-'i.
-.r1 ', IJi r:t,*!
i'r1l Ll q\ d ...8. The soecifrcj.contention of the Applicant is that without issuing any prior i) "15. - -.) ^$:#
for conducting auction of the schedure properties without folowing the procedure contemplated under the provisions of sARFAESI Act,2002 and Rules made thereunder and so, the said sale notice is not legal and varid and liable to be set aside.
9' But the Respondent contended that they have issued an the statutory notices to the Appricant under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2002 and Rules made thereunder.
- To substantiate their contention, the Respondent Bank filed material documents. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Bank issued
demand notice dt.28.12.2022 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and, sent the same to the Applicant through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Bank. Thereafter, the Respondent issued Possession Notice dt. 14.03.2023 and sent the said notice to the Applicant through Regd. Post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Bank. The said possession notice was published in English and Telugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Bank and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule properties as depicted in the copies of photographs frled by the Bank. Thus the Respondent Bank has duly followed RuIe 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002' After issuing demand notice and possession notice as per the contemplated procedure, the Bank issued pre_sale Notice
dt.15.O4.2023 u/r 3(6) of Security Interest(Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 for giving an opportunity to the Applicant to redeem the secured assets and the said notice was sent to the Applicant thorugh Regd. post as evidenced the by the postal irnpugned Auction : ,,. track reports sale Notice dt.2s.or.2o24 and frled by the Bank. Thereafter, the the said notice Bank issuedis , admittedly received by the Applicant. In fact, the Applicant filed copy of f. ' the said notice along with the SA filed by them. fl* ilE
.t
.4
I
Point No.(ii)r
signed and pronounced bg me in the open
1 i il[L] ?$m
sd/-
(c. coPr crrANDl
PRESIDING OFFICER
^,c,{. c0t3Y
DRT.I, HYDEIT,tBAD.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant has established valid grounds for challenging the impugned sale notice issued by the respondent?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Nanditha Enterprises Pvt.Ltd.
Canara Bank
Sri Gummadi GOPICHAND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
