The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's Sale Application, finding it infructuous as the scheduled auction was not materialized and no further substantive relief was available.
Sale Application dismissed; direction to Respondent Bank to issue fresh sale notice following SARFAESI procedure given.
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.
INTHE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MAY. 2026
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND,PRESIDING OFFICER
sA.No.147/2025
Mohammed Ameenuddin Saleem, S/o Md. Mohiuddin, aged 50years, Occ: business, R/o H.No.8-2 -293 I 82 I F- | I I 824, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-SOO 034. ... Applicant
Versus
Indian Bank Rep. by its Authorized officer Barkatpura branch, Situate at H.No.3-4-499 &3-4-7 64, Near Barkatpura Chaman, Barkatpura, Hyderabad-SOO O27. ... Respondent
Counsel for the Applicont : Si D. Raghatrulu Counsel for tte Respondent : Si Hemanth Kumar Vemuri Reserued on : 13.03.2026 Pronounced on : 07.O5.2026 Uploaded to the website on : 12.05.2026
ORDER
(SARFAESI Act )challenging the e AuctionSale Notice dt.07.03.2025 " l{ tri,', -.^ issubd'by, the ndent Bank for conducting auction of the schedule ..propertyo2 l€i.fi4.2O25 and to declarethe sameas null and void. i. . !:-'. .i:j ':':i?f;AW-;r;.o.F.Lt):/ :-! 2
The Applicant availed Housing loan of Rs.2O,5O,000/- from the Respondent against the mortgage of schedule property andpaid substantial amounts to the credit of the loan account and the account was not a NPA. Earlier, the Applicant filed SA 60 I 15 on the file of the Hon'ble Tribunal and also filed WP.No.ll798l18 before the Hon"ble High Court for the State of Telanagana challenging the recovery proceedings and the said proceedings were later withdrawn by the advocate without the instructions of the Applicant. In the meanwhile, Respondent Bank issuedpossession notice dt.O6.01.2021 and subsequently, sale notice dt.22.O1.2021 and challenging the same, the Applicant liled SA 22121 and the said SA was dismissed vide order dt.19.11.2024. Thereafter, the Applicant was regularly paying the amounts. All of a sudden, the Respondent issued Sale Notice dt.O7.03.2025 for conducting auction of the schedule property on 16.04.2025 and the said sale notice was not served on the Applicant and the same was not published in two leading newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property. The Bank failed to follow Rule 8(6)&9(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 as no separate pre-sale notice was issued u/r 8(6) of Rules, 2OO2. Hence the SA.
o'tf':::-'i : -'''::'
"' com ffi ;:fr T :: ffi ::: ::" :::".:,:: i:: : ::' i: l:.:": ::: " :: ::: :
&
1* nk.classifie{, the loan account as NPA on 29.12.2013 as per the
further and issued impugned Sale Notice dt.O7 .O3.2O25 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and Co-borrower Mrs.Syeda Dilsdarusnnisa Raizia and the same was received by them. The said notice was published in two daily newspapers and thb said notice was also affixed on the schedule property and before issuing the said sale notice, the Bank obtained valuation report dt.23.12.2024 from its approved valuer and fixed reserve price in respect of the schedule property. Thus, the Respondent Bank has duly followed the procedure prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing the impugned sale notice for conducting auction of the schedule property. Accordingly, Ld. counsel prayed to dismiss the SA.
Point JVo.(il:-
,.:,'!,. ,.1:t iIYJ
,-,i
,7 . TheFdis no disljur regarding the fact that Applicant along with Mrs.Syeda as co-borrower availed housing loan from the
,,,..11ilildHIt,42B" fi and created mortgage against the schedule property
'.. '' ". Respondent ba :r.,1;;u,;[,#
in security to the repayment of the said loan and thereafter, they committed default in repaying the loan dues. After classifying the loan account of the Applicant as NPA, the Bank issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.07.03.2025 for conducting auction of the schedule property and challenging the same, the Applicant filed the present SA.
...-.of'IntendedSale dt.22.O1.2021 are perfectlyvalid and legal and in view
.,d' .-.-'"1r ;
,," :' of the. same, the Applicant cannot re-agitate the non-receipt of demand .l:',
noticb.possession notice and notice of intended sale in the present SA as barred by principles of Res-judicata. After dismissal of the SA
lth,, frff;i: irrL{,'vfr.- Ba issued the impugned e Auction Sale Notice dt.o7.o3.202 conducting auction of the schedule property on
76.04.2025 and the said sale notice was sent to the Applicant and coborrower through Regd. post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Bank. The said notice was published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Bank and the same was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Bank. Before issuing the sale notice, the Bank obtained valuation report dt.23.12.2024 from the approved valuer of the Bank in respect of the schedule property and fixed the reserve price.
Point No.(ii):-
t2. In the result, SA 147 12025 is dismissed as there are no merits. Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand aispo""d''iif. N; as to costs.
tlAY tl1yg
(Dictated to the P.S, transcribed bg her, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me in the open
court on of Mag,2026).
(G. GOPI CHAND)
1? ftlt'f 1W PRESIDING OFFICER
"4#
i,. ftE-trssar''
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant has established any valid ground for challenging the impugned Sale Notice issued by the Respondent?
Whether the relief claimed by the Applicant in the Sale Application survives for adjudication?
What is the appropriate relief to be granted in the circumstances?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohammed Ameenuddin Saleem
Indian Bank
Gumadi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
