Dismissed

Dhamodhar molugu v. Telangana Grameena Bank

DRT29 Jun 2026SA/601/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an applicant's Securitization Application challenging a bank's e-auction sale as in fructuous because the successful bidder raised concerns, the bank refunded the EMD, and the sale was cancelled before the hearing.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed as in fructuous, and pending Interlocutory Applications were disposed of.

Dhamodhar molugu versus Telangana Grameena Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE. 2026

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA.No.6O 1/2O2b

¶5

Molugu Dhamodhar,

¶6

S/o. Bheemaiah, aged about 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.201, H.No.7-46-40l40, Plot No. I 1, Maithrivanam, Chintakunta Village, Kothapally Mandal, Karimnagar-SOs 162.

¶7

Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Telangana Grameena Bank, Karimnagar Branch, Branch Office at: H.No.2-8- 129, Mukarampura, Karimnagar-SO50o 1^.

¶10

Respondent.

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for the Respondent

¶12

Mr. G. Prem Kumar Reddy. Mr. Mohammed Llbedulla.

¶13

Reserued on Pronounced on

¶14

Uploaded to ttrc Website on

¶15

05.o5.2026

¶16

29.O6.2026 so.06.2026

¶17

:ORDER:-

¶18

The Applicant liled the present Securitization Application under^section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, challenging the e-auction sale^{of the schedule} property conducted by the Respondent Bank on Ol .I2.2025,^pursuant ication of sale notice in the newspaper and the consequential f sale issued in favour of the Auction Purchaser.

¶19

Bank filed its Reply Statement opposing the^relief

¶20

SA.No.601/2025

¶21

However, when the arguments advanced by both the Ld.^Counselswere heard, on 20.O4.2026, Ld. Counsel appearing^{for the RespondentBank} filed a Memo stating that the successful bidder^{has raised serious} concerns regarding uncertainty and completion^{of sale and represented} that the delay being caused in completion^{of sale is resulting him} financial loss, mental stress and^{blockageof fundsand further} requested the Bank for refund of^{EMD amount deposited by him' It is} further stated in the Memo by^{the Ld. Counsel that the Respondent} Bank has refunded the EMD amount^{of Rs.7,87,000/-to the successful} bidder and so the auction^{sale stands cancelled. Accordingly,Ld'} Counsel for the Respondent^{Bank prayedfor the dismissalof the SA'}

¶22

Since, the e-auction^{sale of the scheduleproperty conducted by the} Respondent Bank on^{01.12.2025,which is underchallenge in the} present SA, was cancelled, nothing^{survivesin the present SA and same} is liable to be dismissed^{as in} fntctuous.

¶23

In the result, the^{present SecuritizationApplicationis dismissed as in} fructuous.^{Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any'} shall stand disposed^{of. No order as to costs'}

¶24

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the partiesconcerned'}

¶25

(DcltltedtothePriuateSecretary,transcribedbghef,cone.ied,signedandproftouncedbymeintheopellcourtoft this the 2qh daa^{ofJufte,2026I}

¶26

sdl(G. GOPICHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶27

iH&a
' 161"[email protected]:'
DFr'J.
"ll'n

Dhamodhar molugu v. Telangana Grameena Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhamodhar molugu v. Telangana Grameena Bank

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

Laxmi Venkataramana Constructions versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Mrs Gada Uma Lavanya versus Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Dsr Electricals

Rohit Enterprises and Others versus Icici Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sainath Poultry Feed Making Plant

V Raghavendra versus Union Bank of India