191090000172023_aa45f0b961106dd12c00c826b0b7a1c4.pdf

Reportable/Non-Reportable
  Appeal No. 43 of   2023-DRAT-Kolkata
     IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
   THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
               CHAIRPERSON
    Appeal No. 43 of 2023
             (Arising out of T.S.A. 03 of 2022  in DRT-I, Hyderabad) 
Sri Srikanth Reddy Kasu, S/o K. Praksh Reddy, of Flat No. 4446, 
Wing-3, 4th Block, Janapriya Metro Polics, mErragadda, Near Don 
Bosco High School, Hyderabad – 500 018.
                … Appellant
                                  -Versus-
1.
The Authorised Officer, Bank of India, having its office at  Hyderabad 
Main  Branch,  Post Box No. 134,  5-8-659, Abids,   Nampally  Station  
Road, Hyderabad 500 001;
2. 
Bank of India, Hyderabad Main Branch,  Post Box No. 134,  5-8-659, 
Abids, Nampally Station  Road, Hyderabad 500 001;
3. 
Sri Jagan Mohan Pyrasani, S/o Balaiah Pyrasani,  R/o H. No. 5-1-130, 
Pusal       Basthi,    Gowliguda,       Nampally,            Begum    bazar,  
Hyderabad – 500 012.
                       …  Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant
…  
Mr. Debasish Karmakar
Mr. Parikshit Lakhotia
Counsel for Respondents  No. 1 & 2     …   
Ms. Sanjana Nandi
Counsel for Respondent  No. 3           …   
Mr. Ambudipudi Satyanarayan
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee, 
JUDGMENT                         
:   
22nd April, 2024
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : 
Instant appeal has arisen against judgment and order dated 
14.12.2022,  
passed by Learned DRT-I, Hyderabad dismissing 
T.S.A. 3 of 2022 (Srikanth Reddy Kasu -vs- Bank of India & Another).  
2.
As per the pleadings of the parties, a Housing Loan of 
Rs.1.27 lac was sanctioned to the SARFAESI Applicant, Appellant 
herein, for purchase of a plot and for construction of building thereon. 
Schedule property was mortgaged to secure the loan.  It is stated that 

2
      
  Appeal No. 43 of  2023-DRAT-Kolkata  
the entire amount of loan was not released by the Bank as per the 
schedule. Accordingly, construction of the building got delayed.  Rate 
of interest was increased from 7% to 10.5% per annum by the Bank 
without informing the Appellant.  An amount of Rs.45.00 lac was 
deposited by the Appellant. Appellant came to know from his friends 
and relatives that Sale Notice dated 23.5.2022 was issued by the Bank 
fixing the auction on 27.6.2022.  Objections against the Demand 
Notice were made which were not considered. It appears that a 
SARFAESI Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 
(herein referred to as the Act) was filed by the Appellant challenging
the action of the Bank.  It is further stated that Possession Notice was 
not served upon the Appellant and it was not published in two leading 
newspapers.  It was also not affixed on the secured assets.  Sale 
Notice dated 23.5.2022 was not served upon the Appellant and was 
also not affixed on the secured assets and not published in two leading 
newspapers.  It is further stated that the description of the property 
was wrong, boundaries of the property, in the Sale Notice dated 
23.5.2022, were not given and the valuation report of the property 
was not obtained from the approved valuer.  Provisions of Rules 8 (1), 
8 (2), 8 (5), 8 (6), 8 (7), 9 (1) and 9 (3) of the Security Interest 
(Enforcement) Rules, were violated. Amendment was sought in the 
SARFAESI Application to the effect that action taken by the Bank, in 
pursuance of the Advocate Commissioner Notice dated 17.9.2022 in 
Criminal Proceedings No.  
M.P. No. 54 of 2022 in the file of 
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri, be set aside as illegal and 
against law.   
3.
Respondent Bank filed the opposition before the Learned DRT 
stating that the Housing Loan of Rs.1.27 lac was sanctioned to the 
Appellant for purchase of a plot and construction of the house on 
18.11.2017 which was duly acknowledged and confirmed by the 
Appellant. Appellant was duly informed about the revision of interest 
on account of delay in constructing the building on 11.01.2022.  

…