Dismissed

Ms Tirumala Venkata Ramana Jewellers Yv Ramana Reddy v. State Bank of India

DRT20 May 2026SA/379/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's writ petition challenging a bank's sale notice under the SARFAESI Act. The court held the petition frivolous as the auction had been stayed and did not materialize, rendering the relief infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Sale Application dismissed; directions given to Respondent to issue fresh sale notice following prescribed procedure.

Ms Tirumala Venkata Ramana Jewellers Yv Ramana Reddy versus… — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

INTHE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I ATHYDERABAD

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 2OTH DAYOF MAY,2e26

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.379/2025

¶5

M/s Tirumala Venkata Ramana Jewellers Room No.4O, N.S. Complex, Proddatur-S16 360 Rep. by its Proprietor Y.V. Ramana Reddy

¶6

Y.V. Ramana Reddy, S/o T. Venkata Rami Reddy aged 53 years, Plot No.MIG-4, C- 13&14, AP Housing Board Colony, Proddatur-516 360.

¶7

... Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized officer 2"d floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal Complex, Koti, Hyderabad.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Counsel for tle Applicants Counsel for the Respondent

¶12

: Si B.Raja Rao

¶13

: Smt.P.V. Satg anaragana

¶14

Reserued on Pronounced on Uploaded to the utebsite on

:07.05.2O26

: 20.05.2026

:20.05.2026

ORDER

is frled u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of and Enforcement of Security Interest^Act,2OO2 )^{challenging the Sale Notice dt.04.09.2025 issued by} for conducting auction ofthe schedule^property on :u. cu flA llIE i;^g.s lrtr l flg."; q 25.O9.2025 and the same as null and void. a*,-,^nurrs "k;ns:l-..s ..a.r<t -';l:--:';"

¶20

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

¶21

The Applicants availed cash credit facility of Rs.50 lakhs from the Respondent Bank and at the time of sanction of loan, the officiars of the bank obtained signatures of the Applicants on blank printed documents and the Bank charged huge interest and penal interest. Due to linancial crunch, the Applicants could not make some payments. In the meanwh e, Respondent Bank without serving any prior notices, issued e Auction sare Notice dt.25'0a.2o23 and charenging the same, the Appricants liled sA 345123 on the file of this Hon'ble Tribunal and the said sA was dismissed for default on r9.o4.2o24. The Bank filed O.A.BZLl22 and during the pendency of the said OA. the Applicants deposited a sum of Rs. 13,40,000/- with the Bank. without considering the said payment and without issuing notice prior to sare, the Bank issued the impugned sale notice dt.04.09.2025 for conducting auction of the schedule property and the reserve price fixed in respect ofthe schedure propert5r is very low. The Respondent Bank failed to serve demand notice, possession notice and pre-sale notice to the Applicants and the possession notice and sale notice are not published in two daily newspapers. The Authorized officer of the Bank failed to obtain correct valuation from the approved valuer of the Bank' The Bank failed to forlow Rule s(6)&9(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2. Hence the SA.

¶22

¶23

The Respondent Bank filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the sA and contended that admittedly, the Applicants have availed cc limit of Rs.So lakhs in the year 2018 from the Respondent Bank for business purpose and to secure the said loan, Applicant No.2 created mortgage in respect of the schedule property and in view of the default committed by the Applicants, the Bank proceeded further and initiated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. I.Jiter loan as NPA, the Bank issued Demand notice ,ie{b;&xqN notice has been duly served on the Applicants. . fthereafter,ffie^UanS, ed possession notice dt.l5.O9.2O2L by duly i^r,trroul,4 RnlelfrfltXzl * Rules, 2002. Earlier, the Applicants filed SA

¶24

V-.,*,@

¶25

345/23 challenging the sale Notice dt.25.08.2023 and the said SA was dismissed for defaurt on the part of the Applicants on 19.04.2o24 and, the bank filed o.A.371 /22 and' the said oA. was allowed on 29.02.2024. Thereafter, the bank issued sale Notice dt.04.0 g.2o2s after deducting the earlier payments made by the Applicants. The impugned Sale Notice dt.o4.o9.2o25 was pubrished in two daily newspapers and the said notice was served on the Applicants. The said sale notice was issued after obtained valuation reports from the approved varuers of the Bank and fixed reserve price as per the said valuation. Thus, the Respondent Bank has duly followed the procedure prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing ttre impugned sale notice for conducting auction of the schedule property. Accordingry, Ld. counsel prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶26

Heard Ld. counsel for the Applicants and Ld. counser for the Respondent Bank and perused the material brought on record.

¶27

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶28

ii. whether the Applicants haue established ang ualid ground. for challenging the impugned Sale Notice dt.O4.Og.202S issued bg the Respondent against the scLrcdule propertg?

¶29

iii. To tuhat relief ?

¶30

Potnt No.lil:-

¶31

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

¶32

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicants availed cc limit of Rs.50 lakhs from the Respondent and created mortgage against the sched in securit5r to the repayment of said loan and thereafter th tted default in repaying the loan dues. After unt of the Appiicants as NPA, the Bank issued the

¶33

demand ion notice and sale notice dt.25.0 8.2023 and Applicants liled SA 345123 and the said SA was

¶34

dismissed for default as there was no representation for the Applicants. Thereafter, the bank issued fresh sale notice for conducting auction of the schedule property and charlenging the same, the Applicants filed the present SA.

¶35

¶36

The specific contention of the Applicants is that the Bank issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.O4.Og .2025 for conducting auction of the schedule property without issuing prior to sale notice and without following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of sARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder and so, the said sale notice is not legal and valid and liable to be set aside.

¶37

¶38

But the Respondent contended that they have issued all .the statutory notices to the Applicants under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder-

¶39

To substantiate their contention, the Respondent Bank filed material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said material documents, it is clear that the Bank issued demand notice dt. 14.02.2021 and the said notice was personally served on the Applicants as evidenced by the signature of Applicant No.2 on the office copy of the said notice Iiled by the Bank. Thereafter, the Bank issued possession notice dt.l5.O9.2o2l and sent the said notice to the Applicants through Regd. Post as evidenced by the postal track reports frled by the Bank. The said notice was published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Bank and copy ofthe said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Bank. Thereafter, the Bank issued sale notice dt.25.08.2O23 and challenging the same, the Applicants filed SA 345 123 before this Tribunal and the said SA was dismissed for default. After dismissal of the said SA, the Bank issued the impugned sale notice dt.O4.Og.2025 for conducting auction of and the said notice was sent to the Applicant6-tfro evidenced by the copies of postal track reports ni'3'X uv said notice was published in two daily

¶40

newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication liled by the Bank.

¶41

However, during the course of arguments, l.d. counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that in pursuance of the impugned Sale Notice dt'o4'o9'2o25, auction as scheduled by the Bank on 2s.o9.2o2s was not materialized in view of the stay granted by this Tribunal and arso for want of bidders. As the auction in respect of the schedule property in pursuance of t.I.e impugned sale Notice dt.o4.og.2o2s was not materialized, the relief claimed by the Applicants 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 rerief claimed by the Appricants in the present SA becomes infructuous and the SA is liable to be dismissed. suflice, if a direction is given to the Respondent bank to issue fresh sale notice for conducting auction of the schedule property by strictly following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder.

¶42

Polnt No.(tl)r

¶43

t2. In the result, SA 379 l2s is dismissed as there are no merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶44

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶45

(Dctated to the P.S, transcibed. bg her, _corrected, signed. and. pronounced. bg me in the open court on this tle 20th dag of MaA, 2026).

¶46

sd/(c.^q)Pr CHAND) PRESTIDIIYG OTFICER I;W ,{*st. :'::r'.!, I{YDERAELD.

Ms Tirumala Venkata Ramana Jewellers Yv Ramana Reddy v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Tirumala Venkata Ramana Jewellers Yv Ramana Reddy 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

State Bank of India versus Sri. Vaikunta Kumara Datta

Gundu Krishanveni versus City Union Bank Limited

Ms Vamsi Furniture Industries versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Mrs. Samalla Latha

State Bank of India versus M/S. Godavari Polymers Private Limited

Smt Gilakathula Nagamani versus Grihum Housing Finance Limited