The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Section 17 application challenging a SARFAESI sale notice. Finding no merits as the bank followed statutory procedures, the court ruled clicking no relief. Ordered fresh notice if future action is initiated.
None. The application was dismissed for lack of merits as the auction was not materialized.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL* I AT HYDERABAD
DATEDTHISTHE I2TH DAYOFAUGUST, 2026
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No.29 t,/ZOZ5
... Applicants
Tersus
Rep. by its Authorized officer ARM Branch, Circle office, Situated at D.No.54- 1 6-48, Ground floor, Lakshmi Avenue, Srinivasa Nagar bank Colony, Ring road, Vijayawada-S20 O0S.
Aged 71years, situated at plot No.S10, Service Road, Sri Rama Nilayam SN Bank Colony, Vijayawada_S2o 008
... Respondents
Counsel for tle. : Si D. Raghauulu Counselfor g.:1 : Si Manau Cecil Thomas Respondent {q.1 ri'# 07.2026 n"".*firr,1 2 nU0 ilf I Pronoufud uaociai6,& 'UQES9'on -F;1':h-.: 12.2. 08.202608.2026
ORDER
Applicants No. 1&2 herein are the guarantors to the credit fac ities availed by Respondent No.2 company from the lst Respondent Bank. After availing loan from the Bank, Respondent No.2 company was very regular in repayment of loan instarments but due to unavoidabre conditions and loss in business, could not pay some instalments. The Bank classified the loan account of the Respondent No.2 as NpA without following the guidelines of RBI and initiated proceedings under SARFASI Act,2oo2. without serving demand notice, possession notice and pre-sale notice on all the borrowers/guarantors, the l"t Respondent Bank straightaway issued the impugned sale notice for conducting auction of the schedule properties. The impugned possession notice was not affixed on the schedule properties. The l"t Respondent failed to compry with Rule g(6)&9(1) of Rures, 2002 as the Bank failed to issue notice of 30 days before issuance of sale notice and the impugned sale notice dt.ol.o7.2o2s was not affixed on the schedule properties. The reserve price fixed by the Authorized oflicer of the Bank in respect of the schedule properties is very low. Hence the
SA.
.).
t'ondent Iiled their Reply denying alt the adverse 1s 6ade-in*rd' ;A and contended that the Respondent No.2 r availed cred it fAcilities from the l st Respondent and the a.s guarantors and created mortgage against and thereafter admittedly, Respondent No.2
company committed default in repayment of loan dues. The l "t Respondent crassi'ed the roan account ofthe borrower company as NpA in accordance with the guidelines of RBI and issued demand notice and possession notice to the borrower and Applicants by duly following the procedure. Thereafter, the lst Respondent issued sale notice and before issuing the said notice, the Respondent obtained valuation report from the approved valuer and fixed reserve price in respect of the schedule properties in accordance with the said valuation. Thus there are no violations. Accordingly, Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.
Polnt .I\Io.(i):-
The undisputed facts of the case are that the Respondent No.2 company availed credit facilities from the lst Respondent Bank and the Applicants herein stood as guarantors and created mortgage against the schedule properties and thereafter, Respondent No.2 company admittedly committed default in repaying the loan dues. So, the l st Respondent initiated SARFAESI proceedings and also issued Sale Notice dt.Ol.OZ .2025 for conducting auction of the schedule properties.
Applicants and others throrigh Regd.post as evidenced by the postal track l"t Respondent and the said notice was also published
n as evidenced by the copies of paper publication
fled bv 1st hf ent. When the borrower/guarantors failed to
,Pom{lYZwlU}thfifisaidt d notice, l"t Respondent issued possession
chorice dt.O4.O7.2024 . u .4, Fi s 13(a) of the Act, 2OO2 and the said possession ( r: /r. !' Applicants and others through Regd.post as
.Wr.,:1*ff 4
evidenced by the postal track reports frred by the lst Respondent. As per the documents fired by ths 1"t Respondent, it is clear that the said notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers and the said notice was also affixed on the schedule properties. Thus, the 1st Respondent has duly followed Rule 8(l)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in issuing possession notice in respect the schedule properties. Thereafter, the l"t Respondent issued Sale Notice dt.ol. 07.2025 for conducting auction of the schedule properties and before issuing the said notice, the lst Respondent obtained varuation reports dt.22.o7.2024 & 23.07.2024 and fixed reserve price in respect of the schedule properties. The said sare notice was sent to the Applicants and others through Regd. post as evidenced by the copies of postal track reports Iiled by the l"t Respondent and the same was published in English and Telugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the lst Respondent. However, during the course of arguments, Ld.counsel for the lst Respondent submitted that the proposed auction in respect of the schedule properties pursuant to the Sale Notice dt.Ol .OT .2025 was not materialized' So, the rerief craimed by the Applicants in respect of the sale notice dt.o1.02 .2025 becomes infructuous.
Applicants are not entitled to any relief as there are no merits in the SA. Lq!is answered in favour of the l"t Respondent and
!4*o'qql rttc zu6 ,d
1a -tJ. dismissed as there are no merits. The l.t to issue fresh sale notice by duly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2oo2 and Rules made thereunder.
(Dctated to the P.S, transcibed. bg her, a_rrected., signed and. pronounced. bg me in the open court on this the 12th daA of August,2026)
sd/-
(c. coPrcHAND)
PRESIDING OFT'ICER
ffi"<br>: lzlucmc :
6
,.' ^.r
Asst..iYegGtt",
DRT-I. tiv95i?.454r'
6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants established valid grounds for challenging the sale notice issued by the respondent bank for conducting an auction of schedule properties?
What relief the applicants are entitled to?
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. A.W. Narayana and Mrs. Aepuri Vijayalakshmi
Canara Bank
M/s MECWEL Constructions p.Ltd.
Sri Gummadi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
