The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to set aside an auction as infructuous, ruling that the auction was merely notified but did not materialize despite prior procedural irregularities.
TheSecuritization Application was dismissed as infructuous; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
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 RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE OBTH DAY OF OCTOBER,2025
PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM, L.LB.(HONS.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER
Securitization Application No.96 OF 2025
Mr. B. Shylender Kumar
S/o, B. Kishanji, Aged about 50 Years Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o.H.No.3-14-3615/A P.No.52lpart and 53/part, Srinivasapuram Ramanthapur, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District Telangana State - 500013. Applicant
Versus
REPCO Home Finance., No. 102, MHR House, H.No.7-L-621/274 Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad Telangana State - 500038. Rep by its Authorised Officer.
.......Respondent.
Mr. N. Rama Rao Counsel for the Applicant : Respondent : Ex parte.
-:ORDER:-
2ofz
sA 95/2025
before this tribunal questioning the illegal action of the respondent and sA was allowed on 25.07.2024 by setting aside the possession notice dated 21.09.2023. The respondent faired to foflow the procedures contemplated under Secs.13(3A), 13(2), 13(4) of the Act and Rules 8(1)(2) & (6) of the security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Hence this SA.
5' It is a matter of record that the possession notice dated 2L.0g,2023 was set aside by this Tribunal in sA 466/2023 vide order dated 25.07.2024. The impugned auction on 29.02.2025 did not materiarized. Hence, SA is dlsmissed as infructuous.
(Typed to my dictation by the pS, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 08.h day of October, 2O2S).
,N*
(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Securitization Application should be dismissed as infructuous since the impugned auction did not materialize.
Whether procedural lapses in the Respondent's notice issuance require setting aside the auction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B. Shylender Kumar
REPCO Home Finance
Rameshwar Kothé
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
