Dismissed

Sai Roshini Dendukuri v. State Bank of India

DRT2 Jun 2026SA/233/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging an E-auction sale notice, the Tribunal found that the respondent bank complied with statutory notice requirements. Since the auction was stayed by the Tribunal and not conducted, the application was held infructuous and dismissed without adjudicating the notice's validity.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; Respondent bank directed to follow SARFAESI Act procedures for fresh sale notice.

Sai Roshini Dendukuri versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESTDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.233 of 2O25

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. Sai Roshini Dendukuri, D/o Sri Suresh Rao, aged 27 years, Occ:^private employee, plot no.63, Sai Maruthi nagar, Boduppal, Medipalli - 92.

¶6

Smt Kavitha Dendukuri, w/o Suresh Rao, aged 53 years,

¶7

occ: housewife, plot no,63, Sai Maruthi nagar, Boduppal, Medipalli - 92.

Applicants

Versus

State Bank of India,

Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-II (SARB-II) H.No.1-8-563/1, RTC "X" roads, Opp Sandhya theatre, 1st floor, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 500 020. Represented by its authorised officer

¶12

Respondent

¶13

Counsel for the Parties:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant

¶15

Shri M. Saikiran

¶16

Counsel for Respondent

¶17

Sri A.M. Kiran Kumar

¶18

t9.0s.2026

¶19

02.06.2026 02.06.2026

¶20

(SA. No.233/202s)

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The applicant filed Securitisation^{Application under Section 17 of the} Securitisation and Reconstruction^{of FinancialAssets and Enforcement} of Security Interest^{Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act) challengingthe} E-Auction Sale Notice dated^{03.04.2025issued by respondent bank} for conducting auction^{of schedulepropertyon 05'06'2025'}

¶23

2.Theavermentsmadeintheapplicationinbriefareasfollows:

¶24

The Applicant^{no'2 is the mother of applicant no'1' The applicant no'1} availed education^{loan to a tune of Rs.60.00 lakhs whereas applicant} no.2 is co-borrower.^{Due to covid-19, the applicantscould not pay} instalments regularly.^{So the respondent bank took possessionof} schedule^{property on 18.10.2024. Thereafter the respondentbank} issued sale notice^{dated 03.04.2025for conducting the auction of} property on 05.06'2025.^{While issuing sale notice,no prior notices} areissuedtotheapplicants'ASsuchtheimpugnedsalenoticeisillegal and arbitrarY.^{Hencethe SA'}

¶25

3'TherespondentbankfiledreplyStatementcontendingthatonearlier occasion, the^{applicantsfiled SA'No} '45512024,^{so the presentSA is} of resjudicata.^{The applicants after availing the} in repaying^{the loan, so the loan accountwas}

¶26

.07.2024 as^{per the RBI guidelines.Thereafter}

¶27

ter issued demand^{notice dated 05'06'2024 and}

¶28

(sA.No.233/202s)

¶29

possession notice dated 20.08'2024 and^{the same were receivedby} the applicants. The^{possessionnotice was alflxed on the schedule} propertyandwasalsopublishedin..BusinessStandardandMana Telangana,,twoleadingdailynewspapers.Thereaftertherespondent bank issued^{E-auction Sale Notice dated 03'04'2025, to the applicant} for conducting^{the auction of the schedule propertyon 05'06'2025'In} view of the stay^{grantedby this Tribunal, the respondent bank has not} conductedauctionon05.6.2025andsotheSAbecomeinfructuous and liable to^{be dismissed.}

¶30

Heard the^{argumentsof both Counsels'}

¶31

Now the^{point for considerationis}

¶32

i) Whether^{the appticantshave establishedany valid groundsfor} settingasidetheE-auctionsalenoticedated03,04.2025issuedby the Respondent^{bank by fixingthe auction on 05'06'2025in respect} of the schedule ProPertY?

¶33

ii) To what^Relief?

¶34

Point no.i)

¶35

the course^{of arguments, the Ld counsel for applicantsand} nk reiterated their^{respectiveversions as stated supra'} The contention^{of the applicants is that without issuing} l possession notice, the^{respondent bank straight} ? d[P$a]it'notice or notice dated^{03.04.2025for conducting auctionof} away issued^sale ':-

¶36

(sA.No.233/202s)

¶37

the property on 05.06.2025^{and so the said notice is not valid. So,} the impugned sale notice^{is liable to be set aside.}

¶38

The contention of the^{respondentbank is that in view of default in} repayment of loan amount,^{the loan account is classifiedas NPA and} thereafter demand^{notice and possessionnotice are issued and the} possession notice was affixed^{on the scheduleproperty and published} in two leading^{newspapers. Thereafter, the respondent bankissued} impugnedsalenotice.InviewofthestaygrantedbythisTribunal' therespondentbankhasnotconductedauctionon05.6'2025,Hence the SA becomes^infructuous.

¶39

¶40

TheRespondentbankinordertoestablishthatithasfollowed the^{procedure laid down in the SARFAESI Act and Rulesmade} thereunder,inissuingthestatutorynotices,enclosedthematerial documents^{to the reply. As per the said documents it is clear that on} 05.06.2024^{the respondent bank issueddemand notice undersection} 13(2) to the^{applicantsand the said notice was received by them as} evidenced by^{the postalacknowledgements' Thus there is a valid} service of demand^{noticeon the applicants.Admittedly the applicants} ..',..-... r',.,':.'... "'^{' ,e.eiv"t:the Possession notice undersection 13(4)issuedby the} -! r-^ ^1. il ' respondenl'^{45;per the documents filedby the respondent bank it is} n notice was^{affixed on the scheduleproperty} in two leading^{daily newspapers.Thereafterthe}

¶41

¶42

(SA.No.233/202s)

¶43

respondent^{bank issued impugnedsale notice dated 03'04'2025for} conducting of^{auction on 05.06.2025,but however in pursuanceof} thesaidnotice,noauctionwasconductedbytherespondentbank. So the relief^{claimed by the applicants is infructuousand the SA} becomes^{infructuousand nothing survives in the sA for adjudication} and there^{is no need to decide the validity or otherwise of sale notice} dated 03.04.2025.^{Suffice, if the Respondentbank is directedto} scrupulously^{follow the procedures laid down in the provisions of} SARFAESI^{Act and Rules, 2002 in issuingfresh sale notice for} conducting^{auction of the schedule property' So this point is answered} accordinglY.

¶44

Point no.ii)

¶45

In the result,^{5A.233/2025is dismissed'}

¶46

The Interlocutory^{Applications, pendingif any,} shall stand disPosed^of. No order as to^costs.

¶47

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned'} transcribed by^{her,corrected,signed andpronouncedbY me in the opencourt} 2026) ffi

¶48

sdl(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

Sai Roshini Dendukuri v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sai Roshini Dendukuri v. State Bank of India

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 Mr. Pathan Mahaboob Subhani

Sai Roshini Dendukuri versus State Bank of India

J Surender versus Union Bank of India

Panyala Pushpalatha and Another versus Andhra Pradesh State Financial Services Corporation Limited

J Mukund versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Bellatrix Wagon Traders