The Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad dismissed a Securitisation Application challenging an E-Auction Sale Notice under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal found no infraction regarding service of notices or possession measures.
Order dismissed; pending interlocutory applications closed; no order as to costs.
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.
I
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL* II AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 2BTH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER
Securitization Application No. 440 OF 2025
Mr. Dumpala Venkata Laxmi Narayana S/o. D. Satyanarayana, Gender: Male, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No. 504, 5th Floor, Block No.7, Marams Meghana Residency, Adjacent to Engineers Colony, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy - 500 074 ......Applicant
Versus
Indian Bank, Rep. by its Authorized officer, LB Nagar Branch, Situated at D.No.5-5-496, Plot No.76, Beside Vishnu Theatre, Prashanth Nagar, Vanasthalipuram - 500070 R R District, Hyderabad - 500070 ....Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. Raghavulu Devalla Counsel for Respondent : Mr. V. Sethu Madhava Rao
-:ORDER:-
1, The present Securitization Application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("Act" hereinafter for short) assailing sale notice dated 09.09.2025, fixing the auction on 10.10.2025 in respect of the SA Schedule Property.lM$L\
Page 2 of 5
SA No.440/2025
Page 3 of 5
SA No. 44012025
to persistent defaults in repayment, the loan account was classified as NPA on 08.05.2025, whereupon the Respondent issued a Demand Notice dated 14.05.2025 under Section 13(2) of the Act, which was duly served upon the Applicant. As the Applicant failed to discharge the liability within the statutory period, the Respondent issued a Possession Notice dated 23.07.2025, which was duly served, affixed on the secured asset and published in newspapers in compliance with the Act and Rules, 2002. Thereafter, a Sale Notice dated 06.08.2025 fixing the reserve price at Rs.B9.28 lakhs and an E-Auction Notice dated 09.09.2025 fixing the auction on 10.10.2025 were duly issued, published and affixed; however, the auction failed for want of bidders. Subsequently, the Respondent initiated proceedings under Section L4 of the Act in Crl.M.P.No.215 of 2025, obtained an order for taking physical possession, and the Advocate Commissioner issued a vacate notice dated 15.11.2025, which is impugned in the present S.A. It is further submitted that the S.A. Schedule Property is an indivisible residential flat, rendering the Applicant's plea foi partial sale untenable, and that the Applicant failed to avail the opportunities granted to regularise the account. Accordingly, the Respondent prays for dismissal of the SA.
ii) To what relief?
Page 4 of 5
SA No. 44012025
Pgint, No.(i):
B. In view of above observation, it is concluded that the applicant failed to establish any ground to interdict the measure initiated by the Respondent Bank under the Act, 2OO2 against the SA schedule propertyandaccordinglytheSAisliabletobedismisse,M*
Page 5 of 5
SA No. 44012025
Point No.(ii):
t2. Communicate a copy of this order to theparties concerned and upload in the official website.
(Typed to my dictotion by the Steno., corrected, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the28'h doyof1uty,2026).
/M.I$L\
(Rh"o,r6HWAh KorHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant established valid grounds for quashing the auction date in pursuance to the sale notice due to alleged non-compliance with the SARFAESI Act and Rules.
What relief should be granted in the present Securitisation Application.
Whether the secured creditor's initiation of SARFESI proceedings was categorized as illegal or arbitrary.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Dumpala Venkata Laxmi Narayana
Indian Bank
Rameshwar Kothé
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
