Dismissed

Ms Anros Ayur Pharma Rep by its Prop S v. Bipin Kumar v Indian Bank

DRT30 Jun 2026SA/226/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under SARFAESI Act challenging an auction sale notice. Applicants alleged non-compliance with statutory notice requirements. Tribunal held objections barred by res judicata regarding prior notices. Dismissed application as there were no merits.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act dismissed as there are no merits; interlocutory applications disposed of; no order as to costs.

Ms Anros Ayur Pharma Rep by its Prop S v Bipin Kumar versus… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- 1 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.226/2024

¶5

1.M/s Anros Ayur Pharma Rep. by its Proprietor S.V. Bipin Kumar, 24-8517, 2nd floor, Laxminarayana Nagar Colony, New IDA, Uppal, Hyderabad-500 039.

¶6

Sri S.Venkataiah, S/o Subbaiah, aged 59 years, R/o H.No.7-51/E, Sri Venkateswara Nilayam, Jai Santosh Nagar, Street No.8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad-500O07.

¶7

Sri M. Prakahs, S/o late M.Yadagiri, Aged 60 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No. 1-1-257 129, 30,31 Chikkadapally, Hyderabad-SOO 020 ... Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Indian Bank

¶10

Rep. by its Authorized offrcer SAM Branch, 5-l-679, Sourabhi Arcade, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad-SOo OOl ... Respondent

¶11

Counsel for tLte Applicants : Si D. Raghanulu Counsel for the : Si N Meher Prasad Reserued on 05.2026 ffi\ Pronounced on 9.06.2026 Uploaded to ttrc 5n'Tr^{IuN 2925} ; .06.2026 $&**,d#

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Application is liled u/s. 17 of the Securitization and^{Reconstructionof} Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security^{InterestAct,2OO2} (SARFAESI Act,2OO2l challenging the e Auction Sale Notice d1.23.o5.2024 issued by the Respondent Bank for conducting^{auction of the schedule} properties on 20.06.2024 and to declare the same as null and void.

¶14

The averments made by the Applicants^{in briefare as follows:}

¶15

The Applicant No.l availed Cash Credit^{loan of Rs.15O lakhs and Term} loan of Rs.50 lakhs from the Respondent against^{the mortgageof schedule} properties as security for the due repayment of^loan amounts.^Earlier, the Applicant No. 1 filed SA 199/ 19 challenging the^{e Auctionsale Notice} dt. 13.05.2019 issued by the Bank^{whichis pending for adjudication before} Hon'ble DRT-II, Hyderabad^whereas Applicant^{No.3 filed SA 210/19} challenging the said sale notice^{and the samewas dismissed vide order} dt.13.O3.2O24 and in view of the interim^{passedby the Tribunal, the} Applicants paid Rs.35 lakhs to the Bank.^{ApplicantNo.2 hereinalso filed} SA24Ol19 challenging the^{proceedings initiated by the bank pursuantto the} warrant in Crl.MP.No.368l 19 on^{the file of Hon'ble CMM, Cyberabad and} subsequent sale notice dt.^{18.07.2019issued by the Bank and the saidSA} was dismissed vide order dt.13.O3.2O24.^{By virtue of the interim orders} passed by the Tribunal in the said SA, Applicant^{No.2 paid Rs. 12 lakhs to} the Bank.. The Respondent^{bank sold the original application B schedule} property for a sum of Rs.34,25,000/-^{During the pendency of the} 0.A.631/ 19 frled by the^{Bank, -the Applicants paid asumof}

¶16

Rs.60,50, issued the impugned Sale Notice^for conducti properties pursuant to the Sale Notice are residential in nature.^Schedule Pro notice dt.23.05.2024 itself^{is sufficient} 't'!'lutPYfi/tro e e-ntire debt due Bank and the Applicants^{are not having}

¶17

¶18

any objection to proceed further in respect of the said schedule poreprt5r-3. The Respondent Bank filed part satisfaction memo dt.08. 11.2023 and28.02.2024 before the Recovery Officer in RC.No.94/23 confirming the payments made by the Applicants during the pendency of the OA. The Applicants are disputing the debt amount mentioned in the sale notice as on 20.05.2024 and the debt due is only Rs.1,49,42,529.05 ps. for which, Item No.3 of the schedule property is sufficient to recover the amount claimed by the Respondent Bank. The bank is proceeding for sale of the schedule properties without serving demand notice and possession notice to the Applicants. The Bank failed to follow Rule 8(5X6)&9(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 as no separate pre-sale notice was issued u/r 8(6) of Rules, 2002. The impugned sale notice was not served on the Applicants and the said notice was not published in two daily newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule properties. Hence the SA.

¶19

.). The Respondent Bank filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Applicants earlier filed SA 199/ 19 before Hon'ble DRT-II, Hyderabad basing on the properties situated at RR. District and the said SA is pending for adjudication. The SAs 210/ 19 and 2490lL9 filed by the Applicants No.2&3 before Hon'ble DRT{I, Hyderabad are dismissed on 13.03.2024. The bank sold one schedule property for

¶20

Rs.34,25,000 l- and issued sale certificate dt.26.O6.2O19 and the Applicants herein impleaded the auction purchaser in SA 199/ 19 before Hon'ble DRT-II, Hyderabad. The Applicants paid only Rs.59 lakhs towards loan account and Rs.8 lakhs paid in no lien account towards OTS proposal. The Applicants herein with the collusion of some 3.d parties managed to file different 'erent courts igainst the Applicants and the Bank 1n .No.3 in the sale notice dt.23.05.2O24. The bank ts paid by the applicants to the loan acco present SA even though the previous SA iB^{2I 'tu 2n25} ; 'RrmW

¶21

199119 is pending before the Hon,ble DRT-ll, Hyderabad only to drag on the litigation.

¶22

The Applicant No.t herein is the proprietor of the borrower firm who availed cash credit facility of Rs.2 crores whereas Applicants No.2&3 are the guarantors/mortgagors who mortgaged the schedule properties in favour of the Bank. when the Applicant No. 1 failed to pay the amounts as agreed, the loan account was classified as NpA on 01.01.2019 as per the RBI guidelines and the bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2002. The bank issued demand notice dt.02.01.2019 and possession notice dt.06.03.2019 by duly following Rute g(1)&(2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. subsequently, the Bank issued sale notice and challenging the same, the Applicant No. 1 filed sA 199/ 19 and the mortgagors i.e. Applicants No.2&3 filed SA 210/19 e 24ollg separately before Honlole DRT-II, Hyderabad and the said SAS 2lOllg & 24Ol19 were dismissed by Hon,ble DRT-II, Hyderabad on 13.03.2024. After dismissal of the said SAs, the Bank proceeded further and issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.23.os.2024 and challenging the said sale notice, the applicants filed the present sA and obtained interim orders on 19.06.2024 and failed to comply with the same. The bank has not conducted e auction on 20.06.2024 as proposed. when the Applicants failed to comply with the 2nd instalment also, t-I.e Bank issued fresh sale notice dt.03.08.2o24 and conducted auction on 27.o8.2o24 in respect of the schedule property and confirmed the sale in favour the auction purchaser. The auction purchaser has paid the entire bid amount and sale certificate was registered in favour of the auction purchaser on 05.1O.2024. Accordingly, Ld. counsel prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶23

Heard Ld. e Applicants and ld. Counsel for the Respondent [al^{brought on record.}

¶24

¶25

or tion are
- i'1 '

¶26

ll. uhetlter the Applicants haue established ang ualid ground.s for challenging the impugned Sale Notice dt.23.O5.2024 issued bg the Respondent Bank against the schedule properties?

¶27

llt. To uLhat relief?

¶28

Point JVo.(il:-

¶29

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

¶30

There is no dispute regarding the fact that Applicant No.l availed credit facilities from the Respondent bank whereas Applicants^{No.2&3 stoodas} guarantors and created mortgage against the schedule^propertiesin security to the repayment of the said loan^{and thereafter,theycommitted} default in repaying the loan dues.^{Afterclassifying the loan account of the} Applicants as NPA, the Bank issued^{sale notice for conducting auction of} the schedule properties and challenging^{the same,the Applicants liledSA} 2lOll99 & SA 240/19 and^{the said SAsweredismissedon 13.03.2024} by Hon'ble DRT-II, Hyderabad.^{Subsequentto the dismissal of the said} SAs, the Bank^proceeded further^{by issuing the impugnedSaleNotice} dt.23.O5.2O24 for conducting^{auctionof the schedule propertiesand} challenging the said sale^{notice, the Applicants filed the present SA.}

¶31

The specific contention of the^{Applicantsis that the bank issued the} tice dt.23.05.2O24 for conducting^{auction of the} out serving demand notice,^{possession notice} without following the^{procedure contemplated} AESI Act,2002 and Rules made^thereunder

¶32

is not legal and valid and^{liable to be set aside'}

¶33

Further, Applicants paid substantial amounts during the pendency of the OA but the Bank has not given credit to the said amounts.

¶34

But the Respondent Bank contended that they have issued all the statutory notices to the Applicants under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder and also deducted the amounts paid by the Applicants and the outstanding amount claimed by the bank is correct.

¶35

1 1. To substantiate their contention, Respondent Bank filed material documents along with the Reply filed by them. Along with the documents, the bank frled copies of orders in SA 210/ 19 e 24O I 19 passed by DRTII, Hyderabad. A perusal of the said orders dt. 13.03.2024 makes it clear that DRT-II, Hyderabad dismissed the said SAs by holding that as auction proceedings pursuant to the impugned sale notices in respect of the SA schedule properties have not taken place due to interim order dt.06.08.2019, possession notice dt.06.03.2019 is perfectly valid and legal. In view of the said finding, the Applicants cannot re-agitate the nonreceipt of demand notice and possession notice in the present SA as the same is barred by principles of Res-judicata. After dismissal of the SAs 2IO I 19 &, 24O I 19, the Bank issued the impugned e Auction Sale Notice dt.23.05.2o24 for conducting auction of the schedule properties on 20.06.2024 and challenging the same, the Applicants liled the present SA. This Tribunal passed interim conditional order and in view of the -^{same,the proposedauction was not materialized.So, there is no need to}

¶36

decide or otherwise of the said Sale Notice dt.23.O5.2O24 the relief claimed by the Applicants becomes survives in the present SA for adjudication. ts failed to comply with the said interim ,^{fi.d Bilfrr,rT} further and issued fresh Sale Notice and the notice was sent to the Applicants through the postal track reports liled by the Bank.

¶37

¶38

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 Iiled by the Bank. The bank conducted auction on 27 .O8.2O24 in respect of Item No.3 of schedule property and the auction purchaser paid the entire bid amount and the Bank also issued sale certifrcate in favour of the auction purchaser. However, the said sale notice is not challenged by the Applicants in the present SA. This point is answered accordingly.

¶39

Point No.(ii)r

¶40

In the result, SA 22612024 is dismissed as there are no merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶41

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶42

(Dctated to the P.S, transcibed bg her, arrected, signed. and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 29th daA of June, 2026).

¶43

sd/(G. GOPr CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

Ms Anros Ayur Pharma Rep by its Prop S v. Bipin Kumar v Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Anros Ayur Pharma Rep by its Prop S v. Bipin Kumar v Indian 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

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