Back
DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson
Raj Purohit Sogaram – Appellant
Versus
Indian Overseas Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. auction sale confirmed despite drt stay; bank forfeited bidder's deposit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 17 , 18) |
| 2. drt found bank's forfeiture invalid due to improper sale confirmation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. parties argue over forfeiture legality and relief entitlement. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. unreasoned drt refusal of main relief invalid; forfeiture finding final. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT : 17* April 2026 THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:
1. Instant appeal has arisen against the order and Judgment dated 9.6.2025 passed by Learned DRT-I, Hyderabad om S.A. 03 of 2023 (Raj Purohit Sogaram & Another -vs- Indian Overseas Bank & Others) whereby Learned DRT partly allowed the S.A. by setting aside the letter dated 1.9.2022 for forfeiture the 25% of the bid amount deposited by the Appellants with a further direction to the Bank to refund the Rs.23,27,500.00 deposited by the Appellants towards 25% of the bid amount.
2. Facts, in brief, are that a Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was filed by the Appellants, who are the Bidders in the auction conducted by Respondent No. 1, Indian Over
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
