IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI Dated the 2nd of May, 2025 Justice PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON RA (SA) 76/2014 (SA 348/2012, on the file of DRT-Bangalore)

Between Sri Javed Patel S/o. Syed Mehtab Patel R/at No.5-993/38/19, Mecca Colony, Ring Road, Gulbarga.

… Appellant -Vs-

1. The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Gulbarga Branch Super Market, Gulbarga.

2. M/s. Shahi Trading Co.

Proprietor, Sri Md. Khutbuddin S/o. Margob Ahmed, R/at No.1, Kapnoor, Ring Road, Mapnoor, Gulbarga.

3. Mahila Abhivruddi Sahakra Bank Niyamitha Super Merket, Gulbarga.

Counsel for Appellant : Mr. T. R. Sundaram Counsel for 1^st Respondent : Mr. K. Mohandas Counsel for 3rd Respondent : M/s. S. Hemachandra

ORDER

1. Dissatisfied with order passed in OA 348/2012 by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore, on 26.07.2012, the Applicant before Tribunal filed this Appeal.

2. Appellant filed SA 348/2012 seeking to quash/set aside the Sale Notice dated 04.04.2012 issued by 1st Respondent Bank. After contest, SA 348/2012 was dismissed with costs.

Thus, this Appeal.

3. Respondent No.2 availed loan of Rs.20 Lakhs during the year 2009 from 1^st Respondent Bank. Appellant had mortgaged the Schedule property with 1^st Respondent Bank and created security interest in respect of said property for due repayment of the loan. Major part of the loan was repaid but, the 1st Respondent has not properly deducted the payments made by Appellant. Account was classified as NPA. Demand Notice served on the Appellant was replied. Without serving Possession Notice and Sale Notice, the Sale Notice was published in the newspaper. The Appellant came to know the sale proceedings only on 14.12.2012 when first Respondent’s officials came to the schedule property. In the said circumstances, he filed the aforesaid SA challenging the sale proceedings.

4. Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that the property mortgaged was a commercial property bearing shop No.G-14, G15 and G16 situated in Asian Complex, Plot No.9, Old Jail Garden, Supermarket-SB Temple Road, Gulbarga. The proprietor of the borrower is the friend of the Appellant, and therefore, the Appellant offered his property as security and on the recommendation of the Manager of the 1st Respondent Bank. The Demand Notice dated 25.03.2011 claiming Rs.21,91,876/- is a defective Demand Notice. No date is mentioned in the Demand Notice. Copy of the Possession Notice dated 03.12.2011 was marked to the Appellant. Appellant approached the 1^st Respondent Bank for an amicable settlement and paid a sum of Rs.4 Lakhs on various dates during March, 2012 i.e. Rs.1 Lakh each on 09.03.2012 and 14.03.2012 and Rs.2 Lakhs on 26.03.2012.

He gave the Representation dated 16.12.2012, for settlement, and the 1st Respondent Bank has sent a reply dated 29.03.2012 stating that he has been given seven days’ time as final chance to pay minimum 25% of the total dues. On the same day, the Bank sent a letter under the caption of ‘Sale Intimation’, fixing as date of sale as 05.05.2012. It shows the Bank was not genuine in giving seven days’ time for paying 25% of the loan due. The process initiated for first sale despite paying substantial loan amount, is against the law. The 1st Respondent Bank has not complied with the provisions of Rule 8(5), 8(6) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, by providing correct amount for enabling the borrower/guarantor to redeem the property. The value of all the three properties was fixed on the basis of a common Valuation Report instead of getting separate reports. The value adopted was very minimum and fair market value. One of the properties would have fetched the loan amount. Sale Notice and auction proceedings have not been done properly. The property was valued at Rs.60 Lakhs in 2009. Now, it is valued at very low. Sale Certificate was issued to a person who had not participated in the auction. Therefore, Learned Counsel f