ORDER

1. This appeal impugns the order passed by the Learned Presiding Officer DRT 2, Hyderabad dated 23.05.2019. The facts of the case may be stated in brief as follows :-

2. The 2nd respondent ie., the applicant in the SA availed a loan of Rs.340 Lakhs under the SME scheme from the 1st respondent bank in the year 2008 and later the 1strespondent bank affixed the possession notice on the schedule premises on 07.07.2011 and thereafter alone the 2nd respondent came to know that the bank had initiated securitization proceedings against heri.e., the 2nd respondent and that they had already issued a Demand Notice under Section 13(2) and Possession Notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. According to the 2nd respondent she had never received the Demand Notice and the Possession Notice. The 1st respondent took physical possession of the assets on 11.02.2001 and issued the auction sale notice fixing the auction for sale on 30.03.2012. The 2ndrespondent hadthen given a written assurance to the bank that she would clear the dues by 28.02.2012 but she did not clear the dues as stated by her. The auction slated to be held on 30.03.2012 did not materialize. Thereafter the 1st respondent bank issued another fresh sale notice fixing the auction on 04.06.2012 and the property was sold at Rs.8.21 Crores. However the auction purchaser in the auction held on 04.06.2012 withdrew from the auction and he was returned 25% of the sale price on 09.02.2015. Later the 1 st respondentbank issued e-auction sale notice fixing the auction on 30.03.2017 and the said e-auction failed for want of bidders. Thereafter the 1st respondent issued the 4th e-auction sale notice dated 04.06.2017 fixing the auction on 23.06.2017. The e-auction sale came to be held on 23.06.2017 and the appellant in this case was the successful bidder for Rs.10.55 Crores and later the sale confirmation certificate was issued. The other aspects relating to the securitization proceedings taken up by the Authorized Officer do not come to the forefront as they have not been seriously questioned or challenged by the 2nd respondent and what remained for consideration in the securitization application was the validity of the auction sale in respect of e-auction sale that was held on 23.06.2017. It can be seen that the Learned Presiding Officer DRT-2, Hyderabad has considered this point in detail in her order.

3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant explained the case in detail and stated that the auction has resulted in the appellant becoming the successful auction purchaser and that the appellant is entitled to the property as he has purchased it validly and prayed that the appeal may be allowed.The Ld. Counsel filed written submissions on behalf of the appellant and the same forms part of record. The Ld. Counsel relied upon the following decisions in support of her case. i. 2019 SCC online KAR 3027 “Srinidhi Stone Crushers and another versus Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank Ltd, Bangalore & ors” ii. AIR 1954 SC 429 “Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay South, Bombay versus Ogale Glass Works Ltd, Ogale Wadi” iii. 2019 SCC online SC 1059 “Shakeena and another versus Bank of India and others”

5. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent bank took this Tribunal through the facts of the case and stated that the auction has been conducted properly and there are no flaws in the actions of the Authorised Officer.

6. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent clearly explained the factual aspects of the case and stated that a reading of the pleadings would reveal that the auction is invalid and the appeal requires only to be dismissed.

7. The 2nd respondent filed detailed written arguments and filed copies of documents which she had relied upon in this appeal and the same form part of the record.

8. The 2nd respondent relied upon the following case