SLP © No. 10291 on 2022 before the

Appeal No. 54 of  2022-DRAT-Kolkata
     IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
(Appeal No. 54 of 2022)
               (Arising out of S.A. 165 of 2020 in DRT, Visakhappatnam)
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
1.
Authorised Officer, Axis Bank, Structured Asset Group, 1st Floor, 
New no. 3, Old No. 2 Club House Road, Anna Salai, Chennai-
600002
2.
The Managing Director, Axis Bank, Trishur, 3rd Floor, Opposite 
Samaratheswar 
Temple, 
New 
Law 
Garden, 
Ellisbridge, 
Ahmedabad-380006
             …Appellants
                                  -Versus-
1. 
Sri Lakshmi Vara Prasad Seethina, son of Late Seethina Jogi Naidu, 
Resident of Door No. 39-10-24, Near Ramalayam, Murali Nagar, 
Visakhapatnam-530007.
                      …  Respondent
Counsel for the Appellants
Mr. 
Nemani 
Srinivas, 
Learned Counsel
Counsel for Respondent  
Mr. 
Mr. 
P. 
Veeraju,
Learned Counsel for the 
Respondent.
JUDGMENT                         
:   
On 25th August 2022
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :   
Instant Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant, who was 
Respondents in the SARFAESI Application No. 165 of 2020 Sri Laxmi 
Vara Prasad Seethina versus Authorised Officer Axis Bank and others 
decided on 13.09.2021, whereby Learned DRT allowed the SARFAESI 
Application and declared the e-auction sale of the scheduled property 
as void and further Respondent Bank was directed to refund the 
amount of Rs. 1,00,26,250/- to the SARFAESI Applicant with FDR rate 
of interest.  

2
      
 Appeal No. 54 of  2022-DRAT-Kolkata
2.
As per the pleadings of the parties, Respondent, who was the 
Applicant in the SARFAESI Application, is an auction purchaser and
auction sale was conducted by the Appellants.  Respondent is a  Non 
Resident Indian who came across an e–auction sale notice dated 
25.02.2020 published in the ‘Indian Express’ and ‘Andhra Prabha’ to 
the effect that an e-auction sale of scheduled property situated in Two 
item would be held on 12.03.2020 by e-auction.  Properties were 
located in-
(i) Door No. 07-33, 7-34, 7-35 on Survey No. 103/2, 103/2D of 
Chinagantayada 
Village, 
Gajuwaka 
SRO, 
Gajuwaka 
Mandal, 
Visakhapatnam.  
(ii) Door No. 7-133, on Survey No. 103/2 of Chinagantayada Village, 
Gajuwaka SRO Gajuwaka SRO, Gajuwaka Mandal Visakhapatnam.
3.
In pursuance of the sale notice, Respondent approached the 
Bank and he was assured that the scheduled property of the borrower 
was mortgaged with the Bank.  
Borrower committed default in 
payment of the instalments.  Thereafter, Bank proceeded under the 
provisions of SARFAESI Act.  Loan was declared as NPA.  Legal notice 
as per the provisions of Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act were issued 
and the property was put to auction sale.  Respondent participated in 
the e-auction on 12.03.2020 and the final bid was knocked down in his 
favour of Rs. 4,01,05,000/-.  He was the only bidder.  As per the 
terms and conditions of the sale notice, 10% of the reserve price as 
EMD was already paid and the Respondent was asked to deposit the
remaining 15% bid amount.  Consequently, he deposited the same. 
An amount of Rs.1,00,26,250/- was deposited by the Respondent.
4.
Subsequently, Respondent visited the Bank and demanded the 
Title deeds of the property sold in auction, but he was not provided 
with them.  Even he came to know about the pendency of certain 
SARFAESI Applications regarding the property in dispute.  
He 
demanded the details of the same from the Bank.  
But those 
documents were also not provided to him.  Property also did not match 

3
      
 Appeal No. 54 of  2022-DRAT-Kolkata
with the property at the spot.  He made all the attempts to obtain the 
non-incumbrance certificate, but he could not get the same.  On 21st 
March, 2020, Lock Down was imposed due to Covid 19  Pandemic.
When the Appellant asked for payment of balance 75%  of the sale 
consideration, he sought time for payment.  
Subsequently, the
Respondent also approached the Sta

…