Dismissed

Gandu Srinivas Goud v. Canara Bank

DRT18 Mar 2026SA/8/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the sterilization application as infructuous because the auction scheduled under the impugned Sale Notice was not materialized due to an interim stay. The court ordered the bank to issue a fresh sale notice.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Respondent Bank to issue a fresh sale notice for conducting auction by strictly following the procedure contemplated under SARFAESI Act and Rules.

Gandu Srinivas Goud versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE,ISTH DAYOFMARCH, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.8/2024

¶5

Gandu Srinivas Goud S/o G. Srihari Goud, H.No.2-9-213/ 1, Vikas Nagar, NGOS colony Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal-506 370 ... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Canara Bank, Hanamkonda-ll branch, DPCD 1360 1, H.No.2-5-39, Water Tank Road, Near Naveena Childrens Hospital, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban district-50600 1 Rep. by its Authorized Officer ... Respondent

¶8

Counsel for tlrc Applicant : Sri K.Kranthi kumar Counselfor Respondent : Dr. Sh.eik Faleemullah Reserued on :21.O1.2026 Pronounced on : 18.03.2O26 Uploaded to the uebsite on :18.O3.2026

¶9

ORDER

¶10

¶11

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial of Security Interest Act,2OO2 (SARFAESI Notices dt.O6.12.2O23 and for conducting auction of the same as null and void.

¶12

''j '5

¶13

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

¶14

The Applicant availed credit facilities from the Respondent Bank and at the time of sanction of the loan, the officiars of the bank obtained signatures of the Applicant on blank documents. Due to unfavourable market conditions, the Applicant ran into temporary liquidity crunch and could not pay some instarments and the Appricant requested the Bank for orS. But without considering the same and without issuing demand notice and possession notice, the Respondent straightaway, issued two Sale Notices dt.o6. r2.2o23 and r2.r2.2o23 fixing the date of auction on 15.01.2024 and LT.or.2o24 and, the said sale notices are neither affixed on the schedule properties nor published in two reading newspapers. The Respondent bank failed to foilow Rule 8(1)(2)(6x7)&9(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 20o2. The Respondent bank has undervarued the schedule properties and the reserve price fixed is very low. Hence the SA.

¶15

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 roan account was declared as NpA o".05.o7.2023 and the Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and issued demand notice dt.06. oz.2o23 and, possession notice dt.20.02.2o23 and the said notices were sent to the Applicant through Regd.post. The said possession notice was published in Telangana Today and Mana Telangana daily newspapers and also affixed on the schedule properties. Thereafter, the bank issued Sale Notices dt'o6.12.2o23 and r4.L2.2o23 instead of r2.12.2023 as arleged by the Applicant and the said notices are received by the Applicant. Before issuing the sale no.tices, the Bank obtained valuation report from the qualified valuer of the Bank.lk.-^{Tfus, the RespondentBank has dulyfollowedthe} procedure '..rtri -^li: , the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and, issuing the impugned sale notices for

¶16

1 E, IIAR M

¶17

conducting auction of the schedule properties. Accordingly, Ld. counsel prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶18

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

¶19

Now the points that arise for consideration are ii. uhether the Applicant has established ang ualid ground for challenging the impugned Sale Notices dt.06.12.2023 and 14.12.2023 issued bg the Respondent against the schedule

¶20

properties?

¶21

iii. To tuhat relief ?

¶22

Potnt No.lil:-

¶23

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

¶24

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant availed credit facilities from the Respondent against the mortgage of schedule properties and thereafter 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.O6.12.2O23 end 14.12.2023 for conducting auction of the schedule properties and challenging the same, the Applicant liled the present SA.

¶25

The specific the Applicant is that the Respondent issued the 9.12.2023^{and 14.12.2023for conducting} without following the procedure

¶26

s of SARFAESI Act,2002 and Rules

¶27

made thereunder and so, the said sare notices are not legar and varid and liable to be set aside.

¶28

9' But the Respondent contended that they have issued a[ the statutory notices to the Applicant under the provisions of sARFAESI Act,20o2 and Rules made thereunder.

¶29

To substantiate their contention, the Respondent Bank fi1ed material documents along with the Repry filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Bank issued demand notice dt.06.02.2023 u/s r3(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and sent the same to the Applicant through Regd.Post as evidenced by the postar track reports fired by the Bank and the said notice was returned with acknowledgment .refused, and the said notice was also affixed on the schedure property. Thus there is varid service of demand notice on the Appricant. when there is no response to the said demand notice, Respondent issued possession Notice dt.2o.o7 -2023 in respect of the schedure 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 Telugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication liled by the Bank and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule properties as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Bank. Thus the Respondent Bank has duly followed Rule g(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2. After issuing demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant, the Bank initially issued Sale Notice dt.o6-72.2o23 and thereafter issued fresh sare notice dt.14.12.2o23 by withdrawing the earlier sale notice dt.06. 12.2023 for conducting auction ofthe schedule properties and the said sale notice was sent to Regd. post as evidenced by the postal track t. So, there is no need to decide the validity of noti 06.12.2023 as ttle same is withdrawn by the eaht. 1 0 tf AF 2t!7t

¶30

11' However, in pursuance of the impugned Sale Notice dt.14. 12.202g, auction as scheduled by the Bank was not materialized in view of the interim stay granted by this Tribunal. As the auction in respect of the schedule properties in pursuance of the impugned Sale Notice dt.14.12.2023 was not materialized., t]ne 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 claimed by the Applicant in the present SA becomes infructuous and the SA is liable to be dismissed. Suffice, if a direction is given to the Respondent bank to issue fresh sale notice for conducting auction of the schedule properties by strictly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2002 and Rules made thereunder.

¶31

Polnt No.(il):-

¶32

In the result, SA 812024 is dismissed as there are no merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶33

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶34

(Dictated to the P.S, transcribed. bg her,-corrected, signed and. pronounced bg me in the open courtonthisthe 18th dag of March,2026).

¶35

sd/(c. coPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFF'ICER

¶36

DRT.I, ffYNfr,SA'3F.II

Gandu Srinivas Goud v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gandu Srinivas Goud v. Canara Bank

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

Smt Korukonda Battar Chudmani Died Per Lr versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Raghu Rama Sai Gardens

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Sai Ganesh Agency

State Bank of India versus Mr. Nallabothu Narender

Union Bank of India versus M/S.Mohini Podupu Sangham

Kavitha Enterprises versus State Bank of India