Allowed

Sri Gudala Girish v. State Bank of India

DRT15 Jul 2026SA/593/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application under the SARFAESI Act to quash an E-auction sale notice. The bank failed to file a reply or produce documents justifying the auction, violating mandatory procedural rules regarding notices and publication.

What did the court decide?

The E-auction sale notice dated 05.12.2025 fixing the auction on 22.12.2025 against the schedule property is quashed. The Respondent bank is at liberty to proceed afresh.

Sri Gudala Girish versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 15rH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER SA.No.593 of 2025

¶3

Between :

¶4

Sri Gudala Girish, C/o Gudala Durga Prasad Rao, male, Aged about 37 years, occ: business, R/o flat no.20L, second floor, Sri Venkata Sai Apartments, H.No.24- 1431201, Shivapuri, Malkajgiri circle and mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri district - 500 047.

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State Bank of India, Represented by its Authorised officer, Stressed Assets Recovery branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity centre, Bus terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095.

¶8

Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Parties:

¶10

Counsel for Applicantfor ApplicantApplicant

¶11

Counsel for Applicantfor ApplicantApplicant Shri D. Raghavulu Respondent Exparte Orders reserved on L4.07.2026 Orders pronounced on t5.07.2026 Uploaded in website on 15.07.2026

¶12

ORDER

¶13

¶14

sation Application under Section 17 ot the ction of Financial Assets and Enforcement

¶15

(sA. No.s93/202s)

¶16

of Security Interest^{Act, 2002 challenging the E-Auction SaleNotice} dated05.12.2025issuedbyrespondentbankbyfixingtheauctionof schedule^{property on 22.12.2025under SARFAESIAct'}

¶17

The case of applicant^{in brief is that applicant herein availedhousing} loan facility to a tune of^{Rs.20,59,000/- in 2018 against mortgage of} schedule mentioned^{property. As the applicantsuffered loss during} lockdown during coVID-19,^{could not pay some instalments regularly.} It is submitted that the^{respondent bank failed to followthe due} process of law and issued the^{possessionnotice regarding schedule} property of application which^{is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of} SARFAESI Act and^{rules madethereunder.The respondent bank failed} to issue/ serve the^{possession notice and respondent bank also failed} to affix the^{possession noticeat the conspicuousplaceof the property} and also failed to^{publish in two leading newspapersand thereby not} followed the^{procedure prescribed under Rule 8(1) and (2)'The} respondentbankbeforepublishingE-AuctionSalenoticedated o5.l2.2o2'failedtoissue30daysnoticeasrequiredunderRule8(6) of security Interest^{(Enforcement)Rules, 2002. The respondent bank}

¶18

violated 8( and B(7) of Security (Enforcement) Rules, 2002'
Heezqsttiiit+;"'i'$$
fl'k s th
3. ent. Respondent called absent and set
iitt&icensgrvqg tg.8esp
IY'':81,,ffl Lo^,|""s
"9, . /-
^ .}r,
"$parte.[(

¶19

(SA. No.s93l202s)

¶20

Heard the arguments of Applicant Counsel.

¶21

Now the point for consideration is

¶22

i) Whether the applicant has established any valid grounds for setting aside the E-auction sale notice dated 05.12.2025 issued by the Respondent bank by fixing the auction on 22.12.2025 against the schedule property?

¶23

ii) To What RelieP

¶24

Point no.i)

¶25

The Applicant filed the present SA challenging the Sale notice dated 05.12.2025, fixing the auction on 22.t2.2025 in respect of schedule property. But, the Respondent bank who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property, failed to justify their action by filing reply and producing necessary material documents. The respondent has to establish that the Bank has strictly followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder while proceeding against the secured asset. The Respondent has not evinced any interest in contesting the matter even after giving several opportunities and failed to appear and file reply along with documents to disprqvet1€-'Afieqqtions of Applicant. In the absence of any material -"::;:"L the mandated- provisiffis\of SARFAESI TI Act and l: ::::TJ' Rutes, 2002 J whitei: ;::*:fr;.}k, lrWluL rn^*ll proceeding against the sg{!red asset for fixing the auction of schedule

¶26

(SA. No.593/202s)

¶27

propefty on 22.12.2025, I hold that the Applicant has made a case for quashing the measures initiated by the Respondent bank against the SA schedule^property under the^provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules

¶28

thereunder and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.

¶29

Point no.ii)

¶30

In the result, 5A.593/2025 is allowed.

¶31

Accordingly, the E-Auction sale notice dated 05.12.2025 fixing the auction on 22.12.2025 against schedule^property is hereby^quashed. However, the Respondent bank is at liberty to^proceed afresh against the SA schedule property to recover their dues by duly following the provisions under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules thereunder.

¶32

The Interlocutory Applications,^pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶33

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

¶34

(Dictated to the P.A, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1Sth day of luly, 2026)

¶35

sdl_ (G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶36

,rrwl

Sri Gudala Girish v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gudala Girish 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

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Shakthi Infra Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.

Dhanalakshmi Bank versus Mr. Gajjala Saptagiri

State Bank of India versus M/S. Balaji Moulding Works

Canara Bank versus M/S. Goshen Exim

Sri Jalander Kalakuntla versus Cholamandalam Investament and Finance Company Limited

Kondeti Devadayamani versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.