Authorised Officer State Bank of India Stressed Assets Management Branch, Branch Manager State Bank of India Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India Retail Assets and Small & Medium Enterprises, The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Hirepeth Branch vs SHAKEEL AHMED ISMAIL @ KALGHATGI Prop. M/s. Shakeel Trade, Shantilal Choudhari, Umaram Chaoudari, Savaram M. Chaudari, Sathyanna Sugur, Ratilal Purohit

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(DRAT) 197

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, CJ
Authorised Officer State Bank of India Stressed Assets Management Branch, Branch Manager State Bank of India Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India Retail Assets and Small & Medium Enterprises, The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Hirepeth Branch – Appellant
Versus
SHAKEEL AHMED ISMAIL @ KALGHATGI Prop. M/s. Shakeel Trade, Shantilal Choudhari, Umaram Chaoudari, Savaram M. Chaudari, Sathyanna Sugur, Ratilal Purohit – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s Ramalingam & Associates
For the Respondents: Mr. MA Rajendra, Mr. E.Tamizharasan

Table of Content
1. authority under sarfaesi act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. contention on sale notice and auction issues. (Para 4 , 5)
3. legal duty to inform about address changes. (Para 6 , 11)
4. order assessment and dismissal outcome. (Para 14 , 15)

ORDER

1. This appeal is filed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the order passed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Bangalore passed in SA 49/2015 dated 14.5.2018.

2. First respondent filed SA No.49/2015 challenging the issuance of Notice under Section 13(4) and subsequent auction proceedings initiated by the appellant bank as illegal, invalid and quash / set aside the same. .After contest, SA was allowed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Bangalore mainly on the ground that appellant bank has not complied Rule 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 with regard to service of notice of sale on the first respondent. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal is filed.

3. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that it is not the first sale or for that matter, measures challenged by the first respondent. He challenged the earlier measures initiated for taking possession and sale of the secured asset. He filed SA 549/2010 chall

Click Here to Read the rest of this document