Dismissed

Ms Bbr Green Fields Private Limited v. Indusind Bank Limited

DRT4 Mar 2026SA/181/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's application challenging the Respondent Bank's auction sale notice on the ground that the auction scheduled in pursuance thereof was not materialized, rendering the relief claimed infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Respondent Bank to issue a fresh sale notice for conducting auction of the schedule properties by strictly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2

Ms Bbr Green Fields Private Limited versus Indusind Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL_ I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.1A1,/2c25

¶5

M/s BBR Green fields P.Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Mr.Ramu Murgani S/o Yadagiri Murgani Regd. Office at D.No.6-3-866/ 1, 3.d floor, GMR Towers Greenlands, Begumpet, Secunderabad-sO0 016

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Indusind Bank Ltd, Rep. by its Authorized oflicer Having its office at: Embassy Heights, B Block, 2"d floor, 13 Magrath Road, Bangalore-560025. Regd. office at:2401, General Thimmayya Road, Cantonment Pune,

¶9

Branch office at: 28,Gopa1 Dass

¶10

Bhavan, Barakhamba Road,

¶11

Connaught Lane, New Delhi- 1 I O0O 1

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant : SiSiddarthpogula Counselfor Respondent : Si G. Bhanu Murthg

¶14

Reserued on :13.O1.2O26 Pronounced on : O2.O3.2O26 Uploaded to tle tuebsite on :04.O3.2O26

¶15

ORDER

¶16

¶17

This Application is filed u/ si 17 of the Securit ization and Reconstruction of Financiai Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2OO2 (SARFAESI eJ|dodAff.]Stenging the E Aucrion Sale Notice dt.18.03.202s

¶18

issued by the Respondent Bank for conducting auction of the schedule properties on 22.04.2024 and to declare the same as nul1 and void.

¶19

The averments made by the Applicant in brief are as follows:

¶20

M/s BBR Green Fierds p.Ltd. is a company in the business of green enerry and other sustainability base business areas and currentry running solar power plants in Telangana availed various credit facilities from the Respondent Bank and created mortgage in respect of the schedule properties to secure the said loan facilities. Due to covid- 19 pandemic, the Applicant could not pay some instarments and the loan accounts were classified as NPA on 29.Lo.2o23 without following the guidelines of RBI and the Respondent issued the impugned e Auction Sale Notice dt. 18.03.2025 fixing the date of auction on 22.o4.2o2s without folrowing the procedure. The Respondent bank failed to folrow Rule 8(6)(7)&9(1) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The Respondent bank has undervalued the schedule properties and the reserve price fixed is very low. The schedule properties are agricultural properties and so, the Bank is barred to proceed against the same u/s 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act,2002 Hence the SA.

¶21

Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that in view of the default committed by the Applicant in repaying the loan dues, the loan account was declared as NpA on 29 .1o.2o23 as per the guiderines of RBI and the Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of sARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and issued demand notice dt.29.0r.2024, possession notice dt. 10.0r.2o2s and arso sale notice dt. 18.o3.202s and the said notices were sent to the Applicant through Regd.Post and published in two daily newspapers. Thus, the B4nk has the procedure prescribed under the Act,iboO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing ""t f ffiFffrmSI

¶22

the impugned sale notice for conducting auction of the schedule properties. Accordingly, Ld. counsel prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶23

Heard Ld. counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for the Respondent. Perused the material brought on record.

¶24

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶25

ii. ,thetter the Applicant has established ang ualid. ground. for challenging the impugned Sale Notice dt.19.03.2025 issued bg the Respondent against tle schedule properties?

¶26

iii. To what relief?

¶27

Potnt No.lil:-

¶28

During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the Applicant and Ld. counsel for the Respondent reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶29

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed various credit facilities from the Respondent against the mortgage of schedule properties and thereafter committed default in repaying the 10an dues. After classifi,'ing the loan account of the Applicant as NpA, the Bank issued the impugned sale Notice dt. 18.03.202s for conducting auction of the schedule properties and challenging the same, the Applicant filed the present SA.

¶30

The specific contention of the Applicant is that the Respondent issued the impugned sale Notice dt. r8.0s.202s for conducting auction of the schedule properties without following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI:Act,20O2 and Rules made thereunder and so, the said sale no !,ce i" "oi't.4i,AhC valid and liable to be set aside.

¶31

But the Respondent .iorrt.rra.A . tfrat they have issued all the statutory notices to the Apfli[afli the.provisions of SARPAESI Act,2OO2 and, Rules made ftrereunder.

¶32

¶33

¶34

To substantiate their contention, the Respondent Bank filed material documents along with the Reply fired by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Bank issued demand notice dt.05.04.2024 u/s l3(2) of the SARFAEST Act, 2oo2 and sent the same to the Applicant through Regd.Post as evidenced by the postar track reports filed by the Bank and the said notice was also published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Bank. Thus there is va-tid service of demand notice on the Applicant. when there is no response to the said demand notice, Respondent issued possession Notice dt.09.01.2025 in respect of the schedule properties 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 relugu 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 liled by the Bank. Thus the Respondent Bank has duly followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. After issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants, the Bank issued the impugned Auction sale Notice dt.18.03.2025 for conducting auction of the schedule properties.

¶35

However, in pursuance of the impugned Sale Notice dt. 1g.03.2025, auction as scheduled by the Bank on 22.o4.2o2s was not materialized. As the auction in respect of the schedule properties in pursuance of the impugned Sale Notice dt. 18.03.2025 was not materialized, the relief claimed by the Applicant in the SA becomes infructuous and nothing survives in the present SA for adjudication and there is no need to decide the validity or otherwise of the impugned sale notice. Hence, I am of the opinion that the relief cldiined by the Applicant in the present SA becomes infructuorilsdr$qnin?f is liable to be dismissed. Suffice, if a direction is given to the ResporidEnt bank to issue fresh sale notice for conducting

¶36

auction of the schedule properties by strictly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder.

¶37

Polnt No.(tl)r

¶38

t2. In the result, SA l8l /2025 is dismissed as there are no merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg her_, _conected, signed. and. pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 4th doA of March, 2026).

¶41

sd/(c. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

, * 0fxtp?Uf *
,rr
trb'tr
"lt i. ^. I
.e "g

¶43

Ms Bbr Green Fields Private Limited v. Indusind Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Bbr Green Fields Private Limited v. Indusind Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of India versus Mrs. Zeba Parveen

State Bank of India versus Mr. P. Sudheer Reddy

State Bank of India versus M/S. Maatha Foods Industries

Srivani Medi versus Shriram Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus Mr. Juluri Sai Krishna

Kedari Kusuma And Others versus Shriram Finance Ltd.