Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application seeking to set aside auction proceedings. The Tribunal found the applicant lacked title to the mortgaged property and valid grounds to challenge the bank's enforcement measures under the SARFAESI Act.
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 HYDEMBAD
DATEDTHIS THE26thDAYOF AUGUST'2025
L.LB.(Hons.),M.A. PRESENT: SH.RAMESHWARKOTHE'B'Com' PRESIDINGOFFICER
SecuritizationApplication No'70 oF 2022
M/S SMDHSTECIS nep Ovlts ProP. Mrs'ShaikAyesha W/o ShaikAllabaksh Aoed boutMajor, Occ:Business Rio 13/150,BKMStreet KadaPa-516 001
.......ApPlicant.
Versus
.... ResPondents
Counsetfor the Applicant : Mr' T' VUaYKumar counselfor Respondent Bank : Mr'v' SethuMadhava Rao 2nd Respondent : Exparte
-:93-qE-B:-
Page 2 of5
SANo.7ol2022
Paee 3 ofs
sA No.7O/2022
created mortgage of application schedule property to secure the laon granted to applicant concern. Due to default in payment, account became NPA on 31.10.2019 and demand notice was issued u/s 13(2) on 13.11.2019 and possession notice on 10.03.2020 u/s 13(4). Possession notice was affixed on secured asset and published in 'Eenadu'and'The Hans India' newspapers in compliance of provisions under Secs.13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, 2OO2 and Rutes 8(1), 8(2). By the time conditional order was passed, the advocate commissioner took physical possession of the property pursuant to Warrant issued in Crl.MP No.29!/2022 by learned CJM, Kadapa under Sec.14 of the Act. The respondent bank proceeded to issue fresh e-auction sale notice dated 26.07.2022 fixing auction on 24.09.2022, the successful bidder deposited entire sale consideration within stipulated time, a sale certificate has been executed and physical possession of auctioned property has been handed over to the successful bidder. The applicant filed SA No.175/2022 challenging the auction sale notlce dated 26.07.2022 by suppressing pendency of this SA. SA 775/2022 was dismissed as learned counsel for applicant therein reported no instructions. The SA is liable to be dismissed.
i) Whether the Applicants made out any valid ground for quashing the measures of the respondent bank asprayed for? //ftV,,^*^ ii) To what relieP t-Y-rSN"
Page 4 of5
SA No'70/2022
ffi1"'"
Page 5 of 5
sA No.70l2022
dated 26.07.2022fixing auction on 24.08'2022 and dismissalof the SAon28.06'2024aSlearnedcounselthereinreportedno instructions. Applicanthas not denied this fact' In that view of the matter,theapplicantcannotbepermittedtotakeobjectionasto non-compliance ofprocedureincluding non-issuance of Rule 8(6) notice or subsequentaction of respondent bank in conducting, confirming theauction sale and issuing sale certificate to the auction purchaser under theprovisionsof the Act, 2002'
g.InVieWoftheforegoingobservations,Ifindthattheapplicant failed to make outany valid ground to set asidethe measures of the respondent bank againstthe application schedule property as prayed for.
Point No.(ii):
!2. No order as tocosts.
l3.Communicateacopyofthisordertothepartiesconcernedand upload in the officialwebsite.
(Typed to my dictotion by thePS, corrected,signed ond pronounced by mein the opencourt on this the 26'h doy of August,2025).
f*g'9 AR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant made out any valid ground for quashing the measures of the respondent bank under Section 13(4) of the Act?
To what relief is the applicant entitled?
Whether the applicant has the right, title and interest in the application schedule property?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s SMDH STECIS
Union Bank of India
Sheerla Venkata Shiva Reddy
L.L.B. Kothé
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
