Dismissed

Sri S Srinivas v. Karur Vysya Bank

DRT30 Jun 2026SA/186/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought to set aside an auction of mortgaged property by Karur Vysya Bank. The Debts Recovery Tribunal held that sale notice compliance was met after application of *M. Rajendran* and dismissed the application on default grounds.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri S Srinivas versus Karur Vysya Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3O.* DAY OF JUNE. 2026

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA. No. ta6/2022

¶5

Sri S. Srinivas, S/o. S. Subramanyam, Flat No. 109 & 110, Simhadri Nagar, DAV School backside, Safilguda, Hyderabad - 500 047.

¶6

Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Asset Recovery Branch, 5-8-356 to 362,3rd Floor, Chirag-Ali-Lane, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶9

SriramshettyUpender, S/o. Sri S. Venkateshwarlu, Aged about 47 years,

¶10

Occ: Pvt. Service,

¶11

R/o. H.No. 1-1O-28 I 274 / 3, Opp: Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Kushaigud, Medchal-Malkaj giri Dist. Telangana.

¶12

Smt Aruna Kumari W/o. Sriramshetty Upender, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o. H.No. 1- 1O-28 I 274 / 3, Opp: Venkateswara Swamy Kushaigud, Medchal-Ma1k4j Telangana.

¶13

3 0 JUli 2026 Goud Si K. Roghauendra Rao 3 Sri Manu

¶14

Counsel for tlrc Applicants Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Counsel for Respondents No.2 & 3

¶15

SA.No.186/2022

¶16

Reseruedon	15.O5.2026
Pronouncedon	30.06.2026
UploadedtoWebsiteon	o7-o7-2026

¶17

.:ORDERi

¶18

The Applicant filed the present Securitization Application under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, challenging the auction of the schedule property conducted by the 1st Respondent Bank on O3.Oa.2O22, pursuant to the Sale Notice dt.O7.O7.2O22, IN favour of 2"d & 3.d Respondents-auction purchasers.

¶19

The averments made by the Applicant in the application, in brief, are as under:-

¶20

The Applicant availed credit facilities from the 1"t Respondent Bank to purchase a house ald car and he was regular in payment of loan instalments without any default. While so, or 25.07.2022, some persons claiming to be the purchaser of the schedule property came to the Applicant and demanded him to vacate and handover possession of the schedule property to the l"t Respondent Bank as the Bank is going to conduct auction of the property on O3.O8.2O22 and they handed over a copy of the Sale Notice dt.07.07.2022.

¶21

1st Respondent Bank has failed to serve notices u/s.13(2), 13(a) 8(6) notice on the Applicant. The lst Respondent Bank has publish Possession Notice and Sale Notice in two The 1"t Respondent Bank, without giving 30 days time of Rule 8(6) notice, has conducted the auction of the

¶22

't- . sched"rlb property on O3.Oa.2O22, which is in violation of amended

¶23

, ,:i i+:' ,. .i. ,.:i.,.,j..ar. -{-qv.rs!gn of Sec. 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. The reserve price fixed '.. ]:'-)1.,.,. - bla fhe 1"t Respondent Bank for sale of the schedule property ismuch '<sup> : -_.-- _;::.2', less than the market value. The Respondents No.2 & 3 - auction

¶24

¶25

SA No 1A6/2022

¶26

purchasers have not deposited 25ok and 75Yo of the bid arnount as per Rule 9(3) & (4) of the Rules, 2002. Hence, the SA.

¶27

The 1"t Respondent Bank hled its Reply Statement and Additional Reply Statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the application. The contentions ofthe 1st Respondent Bank, in brief, are as under:-

¶28

The Applicant availed credit facility from the lst Respondent Bank to the tune of Rs.25,7O,000/- and the said loan is secured by mortgage of application schedule property belonging to Applicant. The said loan account has become irregular and same is classihed as NPA on 23.03.2021 in accordance with RBI guidelines. Thereafter, the 1"t Respondent Bank issued Demand Notice u/s.13(2) ofthe SARFAESI calling upon the Applicant to repay the outstanding dues of Rs.22,88,486.08ps., within 60 days. The said notice was sent to the Applicant by registered post acknowledgement due. As the l"t Respondent Bank did not receive any acknowledgement nor the unserved returned cover, the l"t Respondent Balk got published the said Demand Notice in the 'Business Standard" arrd the "Mana Telangana" newspapers dt.3O.O4.2O2l. As the Applicant failed to discharge his liability, the 1"t Respondent Bank has issued Possession Notice dt. 17.09 .2021 and the said notice was duly served on the Applicant. The Possession Notice was affixed on the schedule property and was also published in "The Financia-l Express" and "Mana Telangana newspaperc dt.22.O9.2O2 l.

¶29

ii) As the Applicant was not forthcoming to discharge his liability even after issuance of Demand Notice and Possession Notice, the 1"t has issued pre-sa1e Notice dt. 16.10.2021 under urity Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and the

¶30

7S^said served on the Applicant. Thereafter, the l"t issued e-Auction Sale Notice 17.02.2022,

¶31

SA.Na.186/2022

¶32

fixing auction of the schedule^property on 24.03.2022. The^1"t Respondent Bank has sent sale intimation letter dt.21.02.2022^to the Applicant and also published the e-Auction Sale^Notice dt.17.O2.2O22 in "The Financial Express" and "Mana Telangana" newspapers dt.2O.O2.2022. However, the auction of the schedule property contemplated on 24.O3.2022 did not materialize for want of bidders. So the l"t Respondent Bank has issued contemplated sale of the schedule property for second time on 06.07^{.2022 but the} sale was not successful again for want of bidders.

¶33

iii) The 1"t Respondent Bank has issued Sale Notice dt.08.07.2022^lor third time for auction of the schedule property on O3.08.2022.^The 1st Respondent Bank has also sent an intimation letter to the Applicant about the auction of the schedule^propery and same^is returned un-served with endorsement as "Un-claimed". The^l"t Respondent Bank has published the e-Auction Sale Notice in "The Financial Express" and "Mana Telangana" newspapers. In the auction of the schedule property conducted on 03.08.2023, the Respondents No.2 & 3 stood as highest bidders for an amount of Rs.68,00,000/-. The l"t Respondent Bank has obtained three valuation reports, basing on which the reserve price was hxed as Rs.66,31,816/-, which is the fair market value as on 30.O9.2021. The 1"t Respondent Bank has duly followed the procedure contemplated under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, 2OO2 and SA may be dismissed.

¶34

'l..4i.: | - . * .;, '/$.\hence th9.,qlesent (i. . '..

¶35

-.,i,1;'^{- ""$,oJ,U&} 3 riled their Reply :ri:-.i, denying al.the i; h advcerse al.l.eqations qg*. i" the SA and contended that the 1st Respondent i ; B"ttt *ir$"Trilrr"#hn. procedure laid down under the SARFAEST Act 'ri

¶36

'j the Rules, ZQpfr,ilife proceeding for auction of the schedule^property .:-.u.:-"i

¶37

tt+at- ,thg'trqlE'"deposited 25o/o & 7 5o/o of the bid amount within the iG*A;tit"a';rAfaccordingly prayed for the dismissal of the^{present SA.}

¶38

¶39

s,4.No.186/2022

¶40

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant, Ld. Counsel for the 1st Respondent Bank and the Ld. Counsel for the 2"a Respondent filed their respective Written Submissions/Arguments. I have perused the saine.

¶41

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶42

Whether the Applicant has made any valid grounds for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the l"t Respondent Bank against the application schedule property?

¶43

ii) To what relieP

¶44

Polnt No.ll)t

¶45

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed Home Loan and Car Loan from the l"t Respondent Bank by creating security interest over the application schedule property. As there is default in the repayment of the loan instalments, the l"t Respondent Bank has classified the loan account of the Applicant as NPA on 23.O3.2027.

¶46

It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant that the classification of the loan account of the Applicant as NPA on 23.O3.2021, which is during moratorium period granted by the Honble Supreme Court and therefore the classification of loan account as NPA itself is illegal. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has placed his reliance on two decisions of the Honble Supreme Court viz., in " Small Scale Industial Manufactures Association (Registered) Vs. Union of India & ors.,", reported in (2 e Court Cases 5 1 and in WP. No(s) (Civil) No(s). Shanna Vs. Union of Indio & anr." dated Sharma Vs. Union of India & anr.,'the Honble

¶47

Supreme iburt has under:-

¶48

3 0 JUN 7026 "ln view ol the occounts which were not declored NPA till 31.08.2020 tillfurther orders."

¶49

SA.No.186/2022

¶50

Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the l"t Respondent Bank has^{invited the} attention of this Tribunal to paragraph nos.47.3, 55.2 and^{103 of the} judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in 'Small Scale Industial Manufactures Association (Registered)" supra, relied upon by the^Ld. Counsel for the Applicant, wherein it is heid as under:-

¶51

"47.3 ..lt wos stoted that o circulor wos issued titled^{"Covid-19-Regulatory} Pockage dated 27.03.2020, thereby providing detailed instructions^{qua the} regulatory meosures issued by way of the statement. That^provided for rescheduling of payments-gterms loons and working capital facilities.^That circular doted 27.03.2020 come to further modified by RBI vide^{circulars dated} 17.04.2020 titled^"Covid-19 Regulatory^{package'Asset} Classification^and Provisioning" ond 23.05.2020 titled^"Covid-19 Regulotory^{Package"whereby the} moretorium period come to be extended by another three^{months i.e.,} from 01.06.2020 to 31.08.2020 on^poyment of oll instolments^{in respect of termloans}

¶52

55.2 It was submitted by the respondent advocate that^{"os the circularsissued} by RBI are under Covid-19^package and the^resolution frome^{work issued byRBI} on 06.08.2020 are the^policy decisions, the^{judicial interference bythiscourtis not} warranted. It is submitted thot every regulatory forbearance^{has its trade-oJfs in} terms of adverse incentive ond unintended consequences. It is submitted thot^RBI has exercised its expert wisdom in issuing binding^guidelines to^lending institutions on how to diflerentiate the risks orising from^{borrowers with} preexisting finoncial diJficulties from those which were^performing well but had been impacted by the^pandemic. RBI has taken a bolanced^view, taking^into account the depositors, borrowers, real sector entities and^{banks, Financial} stability and. economic growth of the country were^also kept in^{mind while} arr.ivin0 /,';* f! k ?:oi. 'granted earlier not to declare the respective borcowers ..i )". 3 i!^tB#trffi l

¶53

Counsel Respondent Bank submits that, in the present case, 27.O3.2O2O and the modified circul.ars issued by

¶54

SA.No.186/2022

¶55

the RBI extending the moratorium period from 01.06.2020 to 31.O8.2O2O were followed and the 1"t Respondent Bank has not declared the account of the Applicant during this period and that the 1st Respondent Bank has declared the accounts of the Applicant as NPA on 23.O3.2O21 by following the RBI guidelines.

¶56

It is very clear from the decision of the Honble Supreme Court tn "Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association (Registered)" (supra) and the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the lst Respondent Bank that, as per the RBI circular dt.27.O3.2020, which came to be further modified vide circulars dt.l7.O4.2O2O, 23.O5.2O2O moratorium period came to be extended from O1.06.2020 till 31.06.2020 on payment of all instalments in respect of term loans. Admittedly, the Applicant's loan account was not classified as NPA during the said period and it was classified as NPA only on 23.03.2021. So, I do not find any irregularity said to have been committed by the lst Respondent in classifying the loan account as NPA on 23.03.2021, which is in accordance with the RBI guidelines.

¶57

t2. As regards the contentions of the Applicant with respect to non-service of Demand Notice u/s.13(2), Possession Notice uls.13(a) and Sale Notice u/r.8(6) and non-affixture and non-publication of Possession Notice and Sale Notice are concerned, the l"t Respondent to controvert the said contention, has filed material documents. The 1st Respondent Bank has filed a copy of the Demand Notice dt.30.04.2021, issued u/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, along with postal receipts. Due to non-receipt of either postq-lagkpg,.yledgement or un-served returned cover, the 1st Respondent Demand Notice in two newspapers, including one in ted 30.04.2021. The 1st Respondent Bank has also

¶58

' filed a c@y of the ion Notice dt.17.O9.2021, issued u/s.13(4) of the S${Fq$ilffia1o"H}ir* postal acknowledgement, from which it is very clear that the said n, has duly been served on the Applicant. The lst

¶59

sA Na 186/2022

¶60

Respondent Bank has hled copies of photographs depicting^affixtureof Possession Notice on the schedule property and also copies^{of publication} of Possession Notice in "Financial Express" and "Mana^Telangana'' newspapers dt.22.O9.2O21. The l"t Respondent Bank^{has Iiled a copy of} the Sale Notice dt. 16.1O.2O21, issued u/r.8(6) of the^{Rules, 2OO2along} with postal acknowledgement. Thereafter, the 1"t Respondent^{has issued} e-Auction Sale Notice dt.17.O2.2O22 and^published the^{same in the} newspapers dt. 2O.O2.2O22 arrd 21.02.2022, copies of^{which are hled by} the lst Respondent and however the auction sale did^{not materialize} pursuant to the said sale notices. So, the l"t Respondent Bank has issued another e-Auction Sale Notice il.Oa.O7.2022, a copy of^{which along with} un-served returned envelop with endorsement as "Un-claimed"^{is ftled by} the 1st Respondent Bank. The lst Respondent Bank^{has also hled copies of} publication of e-Auction Sale Notice in "Financial Express" and "Nava Telangana" newspapers dt.O8.O7.2022. The 1"t Respondent^{Bank by ftling} aforesaid documents has demonstrated that it has duly^{followed Sec.13(2)} & 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and Rules 8(1), 8(2) and 8(6)^{of the Rules,} 2002.

¶61

Admittedly, in the auction of the schedule^property conducted^{by the lst} Respondent Bank on O3.Oa.2O22,^pursuant to the e-Auction^{Sale Notice} dt.OA.O7.2022, the Respondents No.2 & 3 stood as^{highestbidders for an} amount of Rs.68,00,000/- and they have deposited the entire^{bid amount} with the l"t Respondent Bank. However, in view of the^{pendencyof the} was not executed in favour of the Respondents

¶62

contended that, the 1"t Respondent Bank

¶63

time as contemplated u/r.8(6) before^publishing

¶64

newspapers u/r.9(1), due to which the Applicant

¶65

SA.Na.185/2022

¶66

has lost his right of redemption u/s. 13(8). In this regard, Ld. Counsel piaced his reliance on the following decisions:-

¶67

i) Decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of " Matheu Vorghese Vs. M. Amritha Kumar", reported in (2O Al 5 SCC 610;

¶68

ii) Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Cetir LLp Vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Priuate Limited and others" reported in (2O2a) 2 SCC; and

¶69

iii) Decision of the Hon'ble DRAT, Kolkata in the case of Appeal No.03 of 2025 -"The Auttnrized Ofjicer, Canara Bank and anr.,, Vs. Sree Vijagasri Lakshmi Troders & ors.", decided on lg.O7.2O2S.

¶70

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant further contended that, Rule 9(1),s 15_day publication cannot curtail Rule 8(6),s 30 days, notice and right of redemption survives until expiry of valid 3O-days, notice as held by the Hon'b1e DRAT in "TLle Autlarized Officer, Canora Bonk and. anr." Case (supra). Ld. Counsel further contended that, as per the postal endorsement on the postal cover, wherein Sale Notice dt.OA.O7.2022, was sent, it was returned to the sender ot 27.o7 .2022, whereas the auction of the property was conducted on 03.08.2O22 i.e., within a gap of only 13 days and so there is no clear 15 days'notice as contemplated under prouiso to Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 2O02. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel prayed for setting aside the auction sale of the schedule property.

¶71

Per contra, Ld. Counsel for- the 1"t Respondent Bank contended that, even after r6i:b'ipt of.pre-sale notice dt. 16.lO.2O2l, issued u/r.g(6) of the Rules, 2002, rie AppttO++ did not come forward to clear the dues, to which he is -.. I^ 4..).,,

¶72

, entitled trifor red€foftion of mortgage. So, the 1"t Respondent Bank issued

¶73

,.1 ,' .. arrntinn nnfine dr t'z niii^au-ction notice dt.17-Q[.2O22u1r.9(ll^-ln:,o rr /-oI1l^f of the r1a- D,,t-^ .nn 1 Rules,2002, fixing the r.:..:-^ rr^^ auction^.-^.:^,^{, . -.' .r h0} "Jli$delT8^{p."+ ity on 2+.os.zo22andhowever,} the auction did not 'i^':i-. rlpteriafi rc to, Wi# bf bidders. Ld. Counset atso submits that, the 1"t ''. . - '' '''+. ..ilt .,; :.: rr'

¶74

\r+*'iiiY

¶75

SA.No.186/2022

¶76

Respondent Bank issued another auction^{notice dt.08.07.2022,u/r.9(1)} of the Rules, 20O2, fixing auction^{of the schedule property on 03.O8.2O22} and the said notice sent to^{the Applicantby registered post ACKdue} returned un-served. with endorsement as^{"Un-claimed".Ld. Counsel} further submits that, the said auction^{notice dt.08.07 .2022, was published} in "Financial Express" and "Nava Telangana"^{newspapers. In the auction} of the schedule property conducted^{on O3.O8.2O22, Respondents No.2 & 3} herein stood as highest bidders for an^{amountof Rs.68,00,O00/-.Ld'} Counsel further submitted that, the^{Respondents No'2 & 3 had deposited} an amount of Rs.6,70,000/- on 01.08.2022^{towardsEMD; an amount of} Rs. 10,3O,OOO/- on 04.08.2022 towards^{25ok of the bid amount (including} EMD); and on 11.O8.2022 they^{paid Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.26,O0,000/-} towards balance 7 5%o of the bid amount.^{Ld. Counsel, therefore,submits} that there is no deviation from Rule⁹⁽³⁾ &^{(4) of the Rules,2OO2} 'ⁱⁿ payment of sale price by the Respondents^{No.2 & 3-auction purchasers.} Ld. Counsel for the 1"t Respondent^{Bank further contendedthat, the} judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant with regard^to the right of redemption of the borrower^u /^{s. 13(8) and the provisionsunder} Rule 8(6) and 9(1), are no longer applicable^{in viewof the judgment of the} Hon'ble Supreme Court in "M. Rajendran^{Vs. KPK Oils and ProteinsIndio} Priuate Limited', wherein it is held that a^{borrower'sright to redeema} mortgaged property under the SARFAESI^{Act is extinguishedupon the} publication of the auction sale notice, not at the^{later stage of the physical} sale or registration of the sale certificate^{and SARFAESIRules 8 and 9} 'notice of sale'that involves^{service to the borrower and} will gain a vested right to the^{property,once the} the full payment is made. So, Ld. Counsel^{for the} that the procedure contemplated under^the made thereunder has duly been followed^by and accordingly prayed for the dismissal^{of the}

¶77

SA.Na.186/2022

¶78

Ld. Counsel for the Respondents No.2 & 3 sailed with the submissions/ arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the lst Respondent Bank and submitted that the Respondents No.2 & 3 have deposited the total bid amount within the time stipulated under Rule 9(3) & (4) of the Rules, 2002, and accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the SA.

¶79

¶80

I have considered the rival submissions.

¶81

Admittedly, the Applicant had received and acknowledged the Rule g(6) notice dt. 16.1O.2021 but, he has not chosen to redeem the mortgage, to which he is entitled to. The 1st Respondent Bank has issued e-Auction Sale Notice for the first time on 17.O2.2O22 fixing the auction of the schedule property on 24.O3.2O22. The Applicant did not choose to chalienge the said notice. When the 1st Respondent Bank has issued and sent another e- Auction Sale Notice dt.O8.O7.2O22, fixing the auction of the schedule property on O3.O8.2O24, to the Applicant, same got returned un-served on 21.O7.2022 with endorsement as "Un-claimed". The contention of the Applicant that there is no clear gap of 15 days from 21.07.2022 till thre date of auction on 03.08.2024 is un-acceptable for the reason that, the notice is dt.O8.O7.2022, it was dispatched on 15.O7.2022 and there is clear 15 days gap from the date of dispatch till date of auction i.e., on

¶82

O3.O8.2O24. It is trite to note that, the Applicant having sent back the postal cover (Sale Notie) as 'IJn-claimed', contending there is only 13 days gap from date of return of the postal coveri.e., 2l.O7.2022tillO3.OB.2O22.

¶83

the Applicant that he has been deprived of as contemplated under Sec. 13(8) in view notice under Rule 8(6) before publishing under Rule 9(1) is concerned, I

¶84

1ptffiti!fl,f,Fe with of the Ld. Counsel for the 1st judgment of the Honble Supreme Court

¶85

SA.Na.186/2022

¶86

in "M. Rajendran Vs. KPK Oils and Proteins India Priuate Limited',^a composite notice under Rule 8(6) and 9(1) would suffice.^{In that view of the} matter, I do not find any merits in the contentions of the^{Applicant that} the 1"t Respondent Bank has not complied with Rules 8(6), 9(1), 9(3)^{& 9(4)} of the Rules, 2002.

¶87

As regards the contention of the Applicant that the reserve^{pricefixed by} the 1"t Respondent Bank is lesser than the market^{value of the property} and that the lst Respondent Bank has not obtained^valuation of^the property and so there is deviation of Rule 8(5) is concerned, the^1"t Respondent Bank, in its material documents, has filed two^Valuation Reports obtained from M/s. G.D. Rao & Associates dt.29.O8.2009^and M/s. S.S. Associates Engineers and Valuers dated^{30.O6.2021 &} 3O.O9.2O21. As per the latest valuation report of M/s.^{S.S.Associates} Engineers and Va-luers dt.3O.O9.2O2l, the Fair Market^{Value of the} schedule property is Rs.66,31,816/-; Realizable Value^{is Rs.59,68,634/-} and Distress Value is Rs.20,16,936/-. The^1st Respondent^{Bank has fixed} the reserve price of the schedule property as Rs.67,00,O00/-,^{which is} more than the market value of the^property and in the^{auction the property} was sold for Rs.68,O0,00O/-. So, I do not find any merits in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant that the lst^{RespondentBankhas} undervalued the property and violated Rute 8(5) ofthe^{Rules, 2002.}

¶88

The next contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the^{Applicant is that,} even though the Applicant has paid the total dues in the loan account towards redemption, the l"t Respondent Bank has^proceeded for^the property and so same is illegal. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for

¶89

,r/j; t Bank contended that, apart from two loan accounts

¶90

j/ 4\

¶91

!,t^jp i.e., Car Loan accounts, the Applicant has also maintained

¶92

il* business loan t in the name of M/s. Safe Export and that in the i.e LAodri}"l$i0" the Applicant transferred the total ainount of ;i:?i,'W'

¶93

SA.No.186/2A22

¶94

Rs. 10,00,000/- by NEFT transaction on different dates i.e., O9.O3.2O22 and 09.03.2022 and since the amounts were transferred through NEFT and belonged to the business loan account, the said amount cannot be given credit to the Home loan account. Ld. Counsel for the 1"r Respondent Bank further submitted that, the Applicant had also committed default in repayment ofbusiness 10an account and so the Bank has taken action for sale of the secured assets, challenging which the Applicant herein filed SA.No.46/2o22 and the said SA was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dt.O8.O7.2O25. I have perused the statement of account filed by the lst Respondent Bank pertaining to the subject loan a/c bearing No.1460753000000314 for the period Ol.O4.2O2O to 12.O8.2O22 and also the copy of statement of account bearing A/c.No. 1460351000000061 , frled by the Applicant along with his letter dt.21.04 .2022, addressed to the 1st Respondent Bank, wherein the Applicant stated that, he made a deposit of of Rs.25,O0,OOO/- as promised into a suspense account bearing A/c.No. 1460351000000061 and requested the Bank to adjust the entire amount towards his Housing Loan account. A perusal of the said statement of A/c.No. 1460351000000061 reveals that it is not a suspense account as the Account Name is mentioned as "Safexpert Ex Control", which is the business loan account of the Applicant. It is evident from the statements of accounts filed by both the parties that, the amounts deposited by the Applicant are not into the subject loan account but into the business loan account. So, I do not find any merits in the contention of the Applicant that the 1st- Respondent has proceeded with the auction of the.property gven after depositing of entire outstanding dues into the loarr

¶95

..aqcount.^.. -.--'.

¶96

,tfi:,: .r':h"-d discussion and settred regal position, r am or thA&ndltL"{H6ui.*jd}t the lst Respondent Bank has duly foltowed the under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made .-^{ltB$q+9"fenfo4ry\g the security inrerest} over the application schedule

¶97

sA.No.186/2o22

¶98

property, being the secured asset,^{to recover its legitimate dues fromthe} Applicant-borrower. Accordingly,^{I hold that the Applicant has failedto} make out any valid^{groundsfor grant of any relief'So, the present} Securitization Application^{is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly,this point} is answered against the^{Applicant and in favouroftheRespondents'}

¶99

Polnt No.llil:-

¶100

In the result, the^{present Securitization Applicationisdismissed'} Consequently, the^{Interlocutory Applications,pendingif any, shall stand} disposed of. No order^{as to costs.}

¶101

Communicate a copy of^{this order to the parties concerned'}

¶102

lDictoted^{to the Private secretory,tonsctibed by he-,co ected, signed ond yonouncedby me in the open couft onthisthe3ddoy ol June'} 2026).

¶103

sd/(G. GOPICHAND} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶104

'"ff";fu
iist:q
!:,RTJ'

¶105

3 0 JUt,l 2irzn

Sri S Srinivas v. Karur Vysya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri S Srinivas v. Karur Vysya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanaparhi Ramanaiah versus Reliance Home Finance Limited

Dhamodhar molugu versus Telangana Grameena Bank

Yarra Srinivasa Rao versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Ssv Constructions

Smt Nallamasu Krishna Veni versus Home First Finance Company Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Saraswathi Powerloom Industry