191090002022023_cc6e57ff23d2e9ccb62022b1bd5d37fb.pdf

1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA 
                               
 Misc. Appl. No. 08 of 2023
(Arising out of I.A. 1481 of 2022 in S.A. 247 of 2019 in DRT-II Hyderabad)
   
            
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, 
CHAIRPERSON
20.08.2024
                                                                                      
Smt. KUNIDENA LALITHA residing at D. No. 5-6, Plot 
16, Survey No. 402, Raikal Village, Farooqnagar 
Mandal, R. R. District, Telangana State
                                                          ... Appellant
                                   --Vs--
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA having office at Stressed 
Assets Recovery Branch, D. No. 1-8-563/1, 1st Floor, 
Opp. Sandhya Theatre, RTC X Road, Chikkadpally, 
Hyderabad.
2. R. Sheshagiri Rao residing at Villa No. 140, LIG 
BHEL, Ramachandrapuram, Sanga Reddy Dist. OCC 
Business. 
                                                .. Respondents 
                            
For Appellant 
: Mr. Rakesh Sanghi, ld. adv. 
  
For Respondent
: Ms. Mekhla Kanji, ld. adv. for bank
  Mr. Nemani Srinivas, ld. adv. for auction purchaser. 
  
 
   
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
 
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned 
counsel for the respondent bank and auction purchaser and 
perused the records.
2.
Instant M.A. has arisen against an order dated 27.02.2023 
passed by learned DRT-II Hyderabad dismissing the I.A. No. 1481 
of 2022 in S.A. 247 of 2019 (Smt. Kunidena Lalitha Vs. State 

2
Bank of India) which was filed by the appellant herein.  Pending 
S.A., I.A. was filed before the learned DRT for amendment of the 
pleadings and prayer in the S.A. 
3.
As far as facts of the matter are concerned, S.A. 247 of 
2019 was filed the appellant before learned DRT challenging the 
auction sale notice dated 18.07.2019 and the auction sale dated 
05.08.2019.  It appears that, pending S.A., secured assets were 
auctioned for an amount of Rs.82.00 lakhs in favour of 
respondent no.2, Sri R. Sheshagiri Rao, the auction purchaser.  
Auction purchaser was impleaded as opposite party.  
4.
Thereafter, the appellant moved an I.A. 1481 of 2022 for 
amendment in the pleadings and prayer of the S.A. to the effect 
that auction purchaser has illegally deposited the bid amount.  
Further, it is stated that amendment is being sought as the sale 
consideration was deposited against the provisions of the 
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.  
No 
legitimate source of income was disclosed by the appellant, which 
is against the Section 2(9) of the Prohibition of Benami Property 
Transactions Act, 1988.  Further, amendment was sought to the 
effect that the bank is carrying out thousands of auctions of 

3
secured assets without paying any Capital Gains Tax and the 
Income Tax.  Appellant would file a Writ Petition seeking a writ of 
Mandamus to the Income Tax authorities to conduct a 
comprehensive probe into the multi-million capital gains tax 
default.  Another ground is taken that the bank is transferring 
secured assets illegally without having any right to transfer the 
property under Transfer of Property Act as proposed in Para V(g) 
of the amendment application.     
5.
Opposition was filed by the respondent no.2, auction 
purchaser, as well as the bank before learned DRT.  Learned DRT 
after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the 
amendment application placing reliance upon Para 21 of the 
judgement of Full Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in 
M/s. Lakshmi Shankar Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors etc. Vs. 
Authorised Officer/Chief Manager, Indian Bank & Ors. 
reported in AIR 2008 Madras 181. 
6.
Learned DRT has observed that in an application u/s 17 of 
the SARFAESI Act, 2002 Tribunal is duty bound to see whether 
the secured creditor has initiated measures against its securities 
according to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act (hereinafter 

4
referred to as Act) or not?  Proposed amendment pertaining to 
us

…