Sri. P Srinivas Vs the Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, BANK OF BARODA, (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS VIJAYA BANK), ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH, NO.19 SHRUTHA COMPLEX, PRIM ROSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:32805-DB WP No. 15807 of 2020

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SRI.RAJENDRA @ RAJENDRAN, S/O LATE SRI.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT C/O. CHANDRASHEKAR BUILDING, VARTHUR PRAKASH LAYOUT, NEAR LAKSHMI NARASIMHA TEMPLE, VARTHUR, BANGALORE-560 087.

¶20

SRI.M.SUNDAR, S/O LATE SRI.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, VINAYAKA FLORIST, RUSSEL MARKET, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶21

SRI.M.NARAYANA, S/O LATE SRI.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶22

SMT.M.SUDHA W/O SRI.M.NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶23

R5 AND R6 ARE RESIDING AT C/O. SNEHA ROSE FARM AND NURSERY KETHOHALLI, CC KUPPE (POST), TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-562 130.

¶24

SRI.M.RAMESH, S/O LATE.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶25

SMT.UMA DEVI, W/O SRI.M.RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32805-DB WP No. 15807 of 2020

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

R7 AND R8 ARE RESIDING AT C/O. SEENAPPA REDDY BUILDING, GROUND FLOOR, KALKERE VILLAGE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 083.

¶29

SRI.BABU, S/O SRI.SYED GHAFFAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, C/O. BB FABRICATORS, OPP. CHURCH, V NAGENAHALLI, R.T.NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 032.

¶30

BLESSED KURIAKOSE ELIAS CHAVARA PARISH TRUST, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.34/1, CHAVARA CHURCH ROAD, VIVEKNAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 047. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF TRUSTEE, SRI.GEORGE C PANAYAM, S/O LATE SRI.PONNOOSE CHELLAPAN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI.FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 TO R9 IS DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER DATED 13.12.2021;

¶33

SRI.MILASH ARROL NORONHA, ADV., FOR SRI.BRIJESH KALAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R10(VC))

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) QUASH THE ORDER PASSED DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI DATED 15.10.2019 PASSED IN RA(SA) NO.47/2017 AT ANNEXURE-A (B) CONSEQUENTLY, TO DECLARE THAT THE ACTION INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SARFAESI ACT AS WELL AS THE RULES AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE SALE NOTICE DATED

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32805-DB WP No. 15807 of 2020

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

22.10.2014 AND THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 26.12.2014 AS NULL AND VIOD, ETC.

¶38

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS ALONG WITH IA NO.1/2025 FOR EARLY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned

¶43

counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 (that is, the authorized officer of Bank of Baroda) and the learned counsel for the respondent No.10, who appears through video conference.

¶44

This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal¹ at Chennai dated 15.10.2019 passed in RA(SA) No.47/2017.

¶45

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that being the guarantor of a loan advanced

¶46

1 DRAT

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32805-DB WP No. 15807 of 2020

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

by the respondent-Bank, to challenge the steps taken under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002² , he filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal- II, Karnataka at Bengaluru, bearing TSA No.13/2017. The challenge was also to the issuance of sale notice dated 22.10.2014 and sale certificate dated 26.12.2014 by means of which, the property of the petitioner was transferred to respondent No.10.

¶50

It is stated that the DRT had carefully noted the contentions of the parties and had recorded its finding regarding lack of due notice, under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and was satisfied that there was no proper notice either under Section 13(2) nor regarding the possession notice dated 10.11.2011. No proof of service of sale notice on the petitioners was filed by the Bank. It was stated that therefore, justifiably the application filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Tribunal.

¶51

2 SARFAESI Act, 2002

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:32805-DB WP No. 15807 of 2020

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

However, it is stated that the DRAT by means of

¶55

the impugned order has cursorily referred to certain documents filed by the Bank and has held that due notice was given to the petitioner at every stage.

¶56

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.10 has strongly urged that the petitioner is a bonafide auction purchaser and due to the repeated cases being filed by the petitioner before various Courts, he is being prevented from enjoying the fruits of the property purchased by Bank.

¶57

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶58

respondent-Bank has sought to support the order passed by the DRAT.

¶59

We have perused the impugned order dated 15.10.2019 passed in the appeal preferred by the Respondent-Bank. The discussion of the DRAT and the Final Order passed in the appeal are quoted below:

¶60

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:32805-DB WP No. 15807 of 2020

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

"In this Tribunal, R1 initially chose to represent his case through a Counsel, but since 15.3.2019, neither any Counsel appeared nor party came to represent its case. This case was listed on 15.3.2019, 1.5.2019, 20.6.2019, 17.7.2019, 6.8.2019, 16.8.2019 and 23.8.2019 and on all dates, R1 chose to remain absent.

¶63

Record reveals that Appellant Bank issued a Demand Notice on 2.9.2011 and it was served on R1 by Registered Post. Proof is available from Page Nos.14 to 17 of typeset. Bank issued a Possession Notice on 10.11.2011 and it was served by paper publication in English and Kannada language newspapers and it was served through affixture also. Proof is available from Page Nos.18 to 23 of typeset respectively. Thereafter, Bank issued a Sale Notice on 22.10.2014 after obtaining a Valuation Report in month of September, 2014. This notice also was served by publication on 22.10.2014. Sale Notice was sent to R1 by Registered Post on the address available with the Bank and it was returned back with endorsement that no such person was found. In addition to it, it was served through affixture also.

¶64

Record further reveals that property was sold and Sale Certificate was issued on the basis of proper valuation and with the notice and knowledge of R1. Hence, Sale Certificate and sale should not have been set aside of these technical grounds.

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:32805-DB WP No. 15807 of 2020

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

R1 chose to remain absent today also to controvert the fact situation.

¶68

Accordingly, impugned order stands set aside. Sale Notice, sale and sale Certificate are hereby affirmed.

¶69

Appeal stands allowed."

¶70

Evident it is from perusal of the aforesaid order that the petitioner herein chose not to appear before the DRAT after his first appearance through a counsel. On seven subsequent dates, the petitioner chose to remain absent.

¶71

A finding was recorded that the Demand Notice issued on 02.09.2011 by the Respondent-Bank was served on the petitioner by Registered Post, proof whereof was available. The Possession notice issued by the Bank on 10.11.2011 was served by Paper Publication in English and Kannada language newspapers and was also served by affixation, proof of which was available on record. Thereafter the sale notice issued by the Bank on 22.10.2014 after obtaining a valuation report in the month

¶72

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:32805-DB WP No. 15807 of 2020

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

of September 2014, was also served by publication on 22.10.2014. The sale notice was also sent to the petitioner by Registered Post on the address available with the Bank and it was returned with the endorsement that ‘No such person was found’. Additionally, the sale notice was also served by affixation. A finding was also recorded that the property in question was sold and the Sale Certificate was issued on the basis of proper valuation and in the notice and knowledge of the petitioner.

¶75

Annexure-N2 is the notice dated 02.09.2011 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 issued to the petitioner. The acknowledgement slip is at page 114. The possession notice for taking symbolic possession of the property in question is enclosed as Annexure-N3, which bears the date 10.11.2011.

¶76

Annexure-N4 is the possession notice published in newspapers both in English and Kannada Language.

¶77

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:32805-DB WP No. 15807 of 2020

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

Annexure-N5 contains the photographs of

¶80

affixation of the notice of symbolic possession.

¶81

Annexure- N6 is the Valuation Report submitted by M/s. Nishanth Associates dated 10.09.2014. The report encloses photographs and a map.

¶82

Annexure- N7 is a notice dated 22.10.2014 calling upon the borrowers including the petitioner to discharge the amount of Rs.1,28,82,364.10 as on 30.09.2014 with interest thereon. This annexure encloses a photocopy of the envelope sent by Registered Post to the petitioner, which was returned. On Pages-135 and 136 are the E-Auction Sale Notices published in the newspapers in Kannada and English on 22.10.2014 showing the date of auction as 29.11.2014. The Sale Certificate is enclosed as Annexure-N9, which is issued in favour of the Respondent No.10.

¶83

Perusal of the aforesaid reflects that the petitioner had due notice and the findings of fact as

¶84

11 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:32805-DB WP No. 15807 of 2020

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

regards notice as recorded by the Appellate Tribunal suffer from no perversity. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order impugned passed by the

¶88

Appellate Tribunal and this petition is therefore dismissed.

¶89

Pending IA No.1/2025 stands disposed of.

¶90

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶91

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶92

PK/KGR* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri. P Srinivas v. the Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. P Srinivas v. the Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syeed Nizam Ali Vs Mr.I.R Patil

M/S G Corp Spaces Pvt. Ltd., Vs Naveen Mysore Prakash

Chandra Mouli Vs Central Bank of India

Sri. T. B. Ramakrishnan @ Sriram Vs Smt. Anjana Pattabiraman

Provident Housing Limited Vs Dasari Naresh

Mr Sachidanand L Khot Vs the State of Karnataka