Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the security application challenging the sale notice issued for auction of mortgaged property by Telangana Grameena Bank, holding the notice valid and the applicant's claim infirmious.
The Security Application is dismissed with no merits, pending interlocutory applications disposed of accordingly.
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 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No.159/2c25
Mohd.Sajeed, S/o late Mohammed Ghouse, Aged 52 years, Occ:business, R/o 8-3-22alBlF, Flat No.201, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad. Presently residing at :Markham, Ontaria Rep. by its GPA holder Ravinder Burbure, S/o Aravind B. Aged 40 years, Occ:business, R/o Flat No.302, BVR Residency, Suraram, Jeedimetla, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist.
... Applicant
Versus
Telangana Grameena Bank Rep. by its Authorized Officer RASMECC, Ashok Nagar(9905) Hyderbad-500 020 Rep. by its Authorized Oflicer
... Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : SriT. Sidhar Counselfor Respondent : Sri Mohd.. Ubedulla
Reserued on : 28.01.2O26 Pronounced on : 25.03.2026 Uploaded to the : 25.O3.2026
25uaR
i. Financial (SARFAESI Act,2OO2l
itization and Reconstruction of t of Security Interest Act,2OO2 the Sale Notice dt. 13.0 3.2025 issued bv
the Respondent Bank for conducting auction of the schedule properer on 16.04.2025 and to declare the same as null and void.
The Applicant availed loan from the Respondent Bank and at the time of sanction of the loan, the officials of the bank obtained signatures of the Applicant and as well as the other guarantors on brank documents. subsequently, the Applicant was herd up in other country and due to financial crunch, the Applicant could not pay some instalments and the Bank classified the loan account as NpA. Thereafter, the GpA holder of the Applicant approached the Bank and requested for settlement of the account. But without considering the same and without issuing demand notice and possession notice, the Respondent straightaway, issued sale Notice dt.13.03.2025 fixing the date of auction on 16.o4.2o25 and the said sale notice is neither affixed on the schedule property nor published in two leading newspapers. The Respondent bank failed to follow Rule 8(1X2X5X6X7)&9(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2002. The Respondent bank has undervalued the schedule property and the Bank has not obtained correct valuation from the approved valuer and the reserve price fixed is very low. Hence the SA.
notice was also affixed on the schedule property and the same was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers. Thereafter, the bank issued possession notice dt.r6.or.2o2s and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and his wife through Regd.post. The said possession notice was published in Financiar Express and Mana Terangana daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. Thereafter, the bank proceeded u/ s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.XN Addl.CJM, Hyderabad and the execution of warrant is pending. Thereafter, the Bank issued sale Notices dt.13.03.2025 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and his wife by Regd. post and the said notice was published in two da,y newspapers. Before issuing the sare notice, the Bank obtained valuation reports dt.21.11.2024 &,22.11.2024 from the approved valuers of the Bank. 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 sare notice for conducting auction of the schedule propert5r. Accordingly, Ld. counsel prayed to dismiss the SA.
wlrcther tlLe Applicant has established. ang ualid grounds for challenging the impugned Sale Notice dt.13.03.2025 issued. bg the Respondent against the sch.edule propertg?
iii. To
Polnt No.
- .€ ,sfld "...Dor;+m4-l$
7 . There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant and his wife availed housing loan from the Respondent against the mortgage of schedule property and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan dues. After classising the roan account of the Applicant as NpA, the Bank issued the impugned sare Notice dt. 13.03.202s for conducting auction of the schedule property and charlenging the same, the Appricant liled the present SA.
8' The specific contention ofthe Applicant is that the Respondent issued the impugned sare Notice dt.13.03.2025 for conducting auction of the schedule property without following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2oo2 and Rules made thereunder and so, the said sale notice is not legal and valid and liable to be set aside.
4
sent the said notice to the Applicant and his wife through Regd. post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Bank. The said possession notice was published in English and relugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper pubrication filed by the Bank and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs liled by the Bank. Thus the Respondent Bank has duly followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
strictly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder.
Potnt No.(tl)t
(Dictated to tlle P.S, transcibed bg her, conected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25n dag of March,2026).
sd/(G. GOPr CHANDI PRES;IDING OFFICER
&a
,liF'
I zs'lARzsz$ I
.'1 ,.r,1
" ,*.rn$*.dfl
GOPY
6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant has established valid grounds for challenging the validly issued Sale Notice under the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the Sale Notice becomes liable to be set aside on account of procedural irregularities followed by the bank.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohd. Sajeed
Telangana Grameena Bank
Sri Gummadi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
