Dismissed

Sri Javvaji Suresh v. Bank of Baroda

DRT3 Feb 2026SA/99/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal adjudicated an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act filed by a third-party property purchaser to quash a sale notice and auction proceedings. The Tribunal held the applicant lacked locus standi as they were a third party without interest in the secured debt and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The security/certification application under SARFAESI Act Section 17 is dismissed. Interlocutory applications stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

Sri Javvaji Suresh versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-^{I AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3RD^{DAY OF FEBRUARY} '²⁰²⁶

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI^{GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

sA.No.99./2024

¶5

Sri Jawaji Suresh, S/o Narsaiah, Aged 47^years, Occ:Govt.emPloYee, R/o H.No.4-18, Thelukunta village, Julapally Mandal, Karimnagar District-S05⁵²⁵

..Applicant

Versus

1.Bank of Baroda

Rep. by its Authorized^Officer,

¶10

Karimnagar branch,^{situated at} 2-.6-lll, Market^Road,

¶11

Opp. MuniciPal^Office, Karimnagar-SOs⁰⁰¹

¶12

Sri Reddi Rajamallu, S/o Mallaiah,

¶13

Aged 65^{years, Occ:business,} R/o H.No.1-95,

¶14

Narsingapur,

¶15

Boinpally Mandal, Rajanna sircilla^District.

¶16

Sri Eega^{Gattumallaiah,} S/o Narsaiah,^{aged 40} Years, Occ:business,^{R/o H.No. 10-1-36,} Flat No.503,^{AditYa APartment,} Ramnagar, Karimnagar

¶17

Sri ByreddY^{Ram ReddY,} S/o LingareddY,^{aged 56} Years, Occ:Agriculture,^{R/o H.No.5-78,} Eligedu village, Eligedu Mandal, Peddapalli district.

¶18

M/s Rep. Varalaxmi by its Prop.Mr.Eega^{SeedProcessing Plant, Gattumallaiah,} -

¶19

Situated^{at Flat No.503,} Block A,^{AdithYa Enclave,} H.No. 10-^{1-36,SY.No.1 139/A,} Near TV^{Station, Ramnagar,} Karimnagar.

¶20

..ResPondents-

¶21

Sri D. Ragharrulu Sri G. Venkat^{Si maithrega} Counsel'for tle^{7"t Respondent Bank:} Respondents^{No.2 to 5} ExParte 06.01.2026 Reserued^on 0s.02.2026 Pronounced^on 03.02.2026 uploaded^on

¶22

.:ORDER:-

¶23

This application^{is filed by the Applicant u/s'17 of the SARFAESIAct'} 2002, challenging^{the impugned e Auction SaleNotice dt'Ol'O2'2O24} issued by^{the 1"t RespondentBank for conductingauction of the} schedule Property^{on 06'03'2024and to declare the same as illegal and} void.

¶24

Theavermentsmadeintheapplication'inbrief'arethat:

¶25

The Applicant^{is neithera borrower nor a guarantorand he is 3'a party} to the^{proceedings issued by the l"t Respondent Bank' Originally} Respondent^{No.2 was the owner of the OpenPlot No'8 admeasuring 284} sq.yds.^{situated at ThegalaguttapallyinKarimnagar Mandali'e'} schedule^{property and sold the same to the Respondent No'3 vide Regd'} Agreement^{of Sale cum GPA dt'21'O2 '2018" Respondent No'3 herein} sold the^said Respondent^{No.4 videRegd'SaleDeed} dt.22.O2.20 .Respondent^{No.4 sold the said property} to the^A bearing^{documentNo'96O612021} purchase, the^{APPIicant was in} dt.1 t of the^schedule ProPerty' peaceful poss$$oPLi:ga1$g^enjd a company^{in the name and stYle} Responde#^{M.3 has beenrun-Q} '^T'* .:9;Yr

¶26

of M/ s^{Varalaxmi SeedProcessing (Respondent No'S) and he obtained} loan from^{the Respondent No'1 by mortgaging the schedulepropertyas} security.^{The Applicant has nothingto do with the loantransaction} between the^{RespondentsNo' 1' 3 and 5' When the Applicantgot} knowledge^{of the fraud done by the Respondents No'2 to 5' lodgeda} criminal^{complaintbefore the PS' Karimnagar and ttre same is pending'} While things^{stood thus,the Applicantcameto know that the the l"t} RespondentBank^{issued Sale Notice dt'ol'o2'2}24byfixingthe date} of auction^{on 06} 'O3 '2024^{in respect of the schedule property' The l"t} Respondent^{failed to serve demand notice' possessionnoticeand sale} notice to^{the Appticant and also failedto follow Rule 8(5X6X7)&9(1)of} Rules, 2002.^{The lst Respondentbank failed to mention the plot} number^{of the property in the impugned sale noticedt'Ol'O2'2O24 '} Hence^{the SA'}

¶27

1"t Respondent^{Bank filed their Reply denying all the adverseallegations} made in^{the SA' The contentions of the l"t Respondent Bank in brief} are that,^{Respondents No'2 to 5 availed credit facilities from1"t} Respondent^{Bank and created mortgage over the schedulepropertyin} the^{year 2013 as security for the said loan facilitiesas evidenced by} Document^{No'10466/2013' The Applicant admittedthe creation of} mortgage^{over the schedule property and the underlying debt' In view} of the^{default committedby the Respondents No'2 to 5, the 1"t} Respondent^{Bank, being secured creditor'initiatedproceedingsunder} the^{provisions of SARFAESIAct'2002and issued all the statutory} notices to^{the borrowers and guarantorsincluding Sale Notice} dt.ol.o2.2o24^{for conducting auctionof the scheduleproperty'The} Applicant^{being a 3ra partY, has no locusstandi to challengethe} proceedings^{initiated by the l"t RespondentBank under the provisions} against the^{schedule property' The 1s} "i^sanOffilqz conducted^{auctionof the schedule} Res ,;.;./#^.rd "&h,""";t'\ "'*"^{bv dulv following *:-o:'u"::} i.""Jti"qr9dffdrynfirit+'"s^{of SARFAESTAct'2oo2 and Rules made}

¶28

'b*$9'

¶29

thereunder^{as this Hon'ble Tribunal declinedto grantinterim relief'} The Applicant^{is not a genuine purchaser and has no locus standito} file the^{presentSA. Accordingly, the l"t RespondentBank prayedto} dismiss the^SA.

¶30

Heard Ld.^{Counsel for the Applicantand Ld' Counsel for the 1"t} Respondent^{Bank. RespondentsNo'3 to 5 remained exparte'Perused} the material^{broughton record'}

¶31

Now, the^{points that arise for considerationare'-}

¶32

Whetler tle^{Applicant has anA loans-standi to challenge the}

¶33

i) proceedings^{inittated bg the l't Respondentbank for conduding} auction^{of the sclwdule propertg pursuantto tle e AuctionSale} Notice dt.11.02'2024?

¶34

ii) Touhatrelief

¶35

Point^{No.lll t}

¶36

During^{the course of arguments' Ld' Counselfor the Applicant and [d'} Counsel^{for the 1st RespondentBank reiterated their respective versions} as stated^suPra'

¶37

.7 ThespecificcontentionoftheApplicantisthattheApplicantpurchased the schedule^{propertyfrom Respondent No'4 underRegd' SaleDeed} andlaterthesaiddeedwasrectifiedbyvirtueoftheRectificationDeed bearing^{No.385/2024 dt'll'O4'2O24 and since the purchase' he is in} ion of the^{schedule ProPertyand so, the} of the^{1"t RespondentBank in respect of the} Respondents^{No.2 to 5 is not valid. It is}

¶38

#;; &***bahe f.rrtt g y.grpgtflffi^{**the l"t RespondentBank has not followed the} +rte-pf"tl[^{pfouc"d'rteprescribedunder the provisions of SARAESI} 4

¶39

*-Qsg

¶40

Act, 2OO2in^{issuingthe impugnedSale Notice dr'o2 'ol '2024in respect} of the schedule^{property and so' the saidnotice is not legal and valid'}

¶41

The Applicant^{is claiming right over the schedulepropertyby virtueof} Regd.Sale^{Deed dt'16'o7 '2021 executedbyRespondentNo'4'} Admittedly,^{RespondentsNo'2 to 5 created mortgage in respectof the} schedule^{property in favour of the 1"t Respondent Bank in securityto} theloanfacilitiesavailedbythemintheyear2013'muchpriortothe said sale^{deed in favour of the Applicant' The Applicant being a 3'd} party, has^{no right or authorityto contendthat the l"t Respondent Bank} has not^{followedthe procedure contemplatedunder the provisions of} SAFAESI^{Act,2OO2in issuing sale notice for conducting auction of the} schedule^{property' However' the l"t Respondent Bank has contended} that the^{Bankhas issued demald notice' possessionnotice and the} impugned^{sale noticein respect of the scheduleproperty in accordance} with the^{provisionsof SARFAESI Act' 2OO2and Rules made thereunder} and there^{are no violations' It is also submitted by the Bank that} pursuant to^{the impugned e Auction Sale Noticedt'Ol 'O2 '2024 ' the} Bank has^{conductedauction of the schedule property and conlirmed} the same^{in favourof the successfulauctionpurchaser by duly} following^{the procedurecontemplatedunder the provisionsof} SARFAESI^{Act,2OO2andRules madethereunder'The alleged Regd'Sale} Deed dt.16.07.2021^{on the basis of which' the Applicant is claiming} right over^{the schedule property issubsequent to the creation of} mortgage^{over the schedule property in favour of the 1"t Respondent} Bank by^{the RespondentsNo'2 to 5 in securityto the loan facilities} availed^{by them from the Bank and hencethe said sale deed does not} have any^{legal sanctity and the Applicanthas no locus-standito} inss initiated^{by the l"t Respondentin respect of} c ,^""k$Sffi.$fo'^{the provisionsof SARAFAESIAct' 2002 in} rr" if*" ir$$.""","{\n'ble^{Apex courtbetrtteen Jagdish sigh} ' ;-4\g' wtprein^{the Hon'ble Apex Court has} vs.Heerah$ffi)r&6F"t ^ ti

¶42

categoncallA held that 3d^{partieswith no direct interest in tle seqtred} debt cannot inuoke^{Section 14 oftheSARFAESI Act, 2002.}

¶43

g. So, considering all the^{circumstances,I am of tlle opinionthat there} are no bonafides on tl^{e part of the Applicant in liling the present SA} challenging the action of the l"t^{Respondentbank in issuing e Auction} Sale Notice dt.Ol.o2.2}24 for^{conductingauction of the schedule} property and the Applicant is^{not entitledfor any relief as thereare no} merits in the SA. The^{Applicantcan seek appropriate remedyby} approaching competent^{Civil Court for claiming damagesor any other} relief against Respondents^{No'2 to 5.Accordingly, this pointis} answered against^{the Applicant and in favourof the l"t Respondent} Bank.

¶44

Polnt No.(iilr

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

(Dict@ted to tle P.A, transc:ribed W^{her,an'reded,srgned and pronaunced bgmeitu theoperl@utt oft thi's the gd} of February, 2026).

¶48

sd/-
(G. GOPICHANDI
PRESIDING OFFICER
03 FEA
rRuE{PoP)(l)g'ri
'/Hfr #ffiffi*
ft'{

Sri Javvaji Suresh v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Javvaji Suresh v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Nilesh Chunilal Sanghoi versus Cfm Asset Management Private Ltd.

kota roja rani versus State Bank of India

Ujwal Agarwal versus Agarwal

State Bank of India versus Ms. B. Kanaka Maha Lakshmi

State Bank of India versus Mr. D. Ankarao

State Bank of India versus Mrs. B.V. Anantha Lakshmi