Dismissed

Sri Abhay Kumar Reddy Rep by His Gpa v. PNB Housing Finance Limited

DRT21 May 2026SA/462/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a Sale Notice under the SARFAESI Act, holding that the claim was infructuous as the scheduled auction was stayed and did not materialize. The court directed the bank to issue a fresh sale notice complying with the Act.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Respondent Bank to issue a fresh sale notice for conducting auction by strictly following the procedure under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules.

Sri Abhay Kumar Reddy Rep by His Gpa versus PNB Housing… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

INTHE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MAY. 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.462/2024

¶5

Sri Santimalla Abhinay Kumar Reddy, S/o Sntimalla Vijaya Kumar Reddy, Aged 33 years, Occ:service,R/o Canada Rep. by his GPA

¶6

Sri Santimalla Abhilash Kumar Reddy, S/o Santimalla Vijaya Kumar Reddy, Aged 30 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No.2-22-3811, Plot No. 145, Venkata Residency, Flat No.301, Eenadu Society, Near Reliance Fresh, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-SO} 07 2..

¶7

... Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

PNB Housing Finance Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized officer D.No.39-3-1, 2"d floor, Above Anjaneya Jewellery Complex, M.G. Road, Vijayawada-S2OO 10

¶10

Also at :

¶11

PNB Housing Finance Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized officer Road No. 1, KPHB Colony, 2"d Floor, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-S00 072.

¶12

.. . Respondent

¶13

Counsel for Counsel for

¶14

: Si G.L. Prasada Rao : Si Lanka Jagannadham

¶15

:06.O5.2O26 : 21.05.2O26 :21.05.2026

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Application is filed u/s.17 of the Securit2ation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2OO2 (SARFAESI Act,2OO2) challenging the Sale Notice dt. 12. 1 1.2024 issued by the Respondent for conducting auction of the schedule propert5r on O5.I2.2O24 and to declare the same as null and void.

¶18

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

¶19

The Applicants availed housing loan from the Respondent Bank. Due to crop loss and Covid-19, the Applicants could not make some payments. In the meanwhile, Respondent Bank without serving any prior notices, issued e Auction Sale Notice dt. 12. 1 1.2024. The charge against the schedule property was not registered. The Respondent Bank failed to disclose the details of schedule property, reserve price etc. in the said sale notice. The Respondent failed to serve statutory notices to the Applicants as prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder. Hence the SA.

¶20

The Respondents filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that admittedly, the Applicants availed Housing loan facility in the year 2022 from the Respondent and to secure the said loan, the Applicants created mortgage in respect of the schedule property and the same was registered with Central Registry. After availing the loan facility, Applicants committed default in repaying the loan dues and so, the Bank proceeded further and initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. After classilication of the loan as NPA on 04.o3.2024 Demand notice dt. 11.03.2024 and the said notice the Applicants and the said notice was pub s. Thereafter, the bank issued possession ,', notice *^tt 86120fr1^{ffidu$ following Rule8(1)(2) of Rules,2002.} tef, *e^{Respondents proceeded} u/s 14 of the SARAFAESI Act, ..1 .. ".'

¶21

2OO2 and took physical possession of the schedule propert5r pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Sangareddy. The bank earlier issued sale notice fixing the date of auction on 23.09.2024 and the said auction was not materialized. Again, the Bank issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.l2.ll.2024 and challenging the same, the Applicants filed the present SA and the said auction was not materialized. Thereafter, the Bank also issued another Sale Notice dt.27.02.2o25, however the said auction was also not materialized. Accordingly, Ld. counsel prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶22

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

¶23

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶24

ii. toLetLer tLrc Applicants haue establisled any ualid ground for challenging the impugned Sale Notice dt.12.11.2024 issued bg the Respondent against tlrc schedule propertA?

¶25

iii. To tuhat relief ?

¶26

Point lVo.li):-

¶27

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

¶28

7 . There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicants availed housing loan from the Respondent and created mortgage against the schedule property in security to the repayment of said loan and thereafter the Applicants committed default in repaying the loan dues. After classifying the loan icants as NPA, the Bank issued the demand notice, gg1-also^{took physical possession of the} 4of tfg Snnnnes I Act, 2OO2. Thereafter, the bank issued the sale ,notice _d1.12.L,1.2024 for conducting auction of the ::.o^{2f ilAY2026}

¶29

schedule propert5z and challenging the same, the Applicants filed the present SA.

¶30

8' The specific contention of the Applicants is that the Bank issued the impugned Sale Notice dt.I2.Ll.2O24 for conducting auction of the schedule property without issuing any prior notices 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.

¶31

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.

¶32

To substantiate their contention, the Respondent Bank liled 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. 11.03.2024 and the said notice was sent to the Applicants through Regd. Post as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Bank and the said notice was also published in two daily newspapers. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicants. When there is no response to the said notice, the Bank issued possession notice dt.ll.06.2024 and sent the said notice to the Applicants through Regd. Post as evidenced by the postal track reports Iiled by the Bank. The said notice was published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication Iiled by the Bank and copy of tice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted. by the Bank. Thereafter, the Bank issued sal challenging the same, the Applicants l-rled * ilAY^,{r7fi

¶33

However, during the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that in pursuance of the impugned Sale Notice dt.12.1 1.2024, auction as scheduled by the Bank on 05.12.2024 was not materialized in view of the stay granted by this Tribunal. As the auction in respect of the schedule property in pursuance of the impugned Sale Notice dt. 12.11.2024 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 relief claimed by the Applicants in the present SA becomes infructuous and the SA is liable to be dismissed. Suffice, 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.

¶34

Potnt No.(ti)r

¶35

In the result, SA 462124 is dismissed as there are no^merits. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications,^pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶36

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed bg he\ conected, signed and^pronounced bg^{me in the open} court on this the 21* dag of Mag,2026).

¶38

sd/-
(G. GOPI CHAND)
PRESIDING Otr'FICER
d"Yfrrud
asst"n4#r
nn'-r rynrRASAO'
5

Sri Abhay Kumar Reddy Rep by His Gpa v. PNB Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Abhay Kumar Reddy Rep by His Gpa v. PNB Housing Finance Limited

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

Ms Tirumala Venkata Ramana Jewellers Yv Ramana Reddy versus State Bank of India

Smt Gilakathula Nagamani versus Grihum Housing Finance Limited

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

Bank of Baroda versus Bolla Ramesh

Mr Ravikanti Ashok versus State Bank of India

Ms Sai Ram Krishna Motorbikes Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India