Civil Appeal Nos. 5542-5543 of

Appeal No. 134 of  2018-DRAT-Kolkata
     IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
  Appeal No. 134 of 2018
          (Arising out of S.A. 79 of 2017 in DRT-I, Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
Nampally  Kishan,  Son  of  Rajamallu,  resident  of  2-6-4/9,  Housing Board 
Colony, 2-26/1, Jammikunta, Karimnagar – 505 122.
         … Appellant
         -Versus- 
1.
Telengana Grameena Bank, represented by Authorised Officer, 
Jammikunta Branch, Jammikunta, Karimnagar;  
2.
Syed Azmath Pasha, Son of Miya Saheb, resident of 5-10, 
Marripalligudem, Kamalpur Mandal, Warrangal Urban, erstwhile 
Karimnagar District.
    …  Respondents 
Counsel for the Appellant
…       Mr. Nemani Srinivas
Counsel for Respondent Bank  
…       Mr. Soudip Pal Chowdhuri
Ms. Saswati Sikder
JUDGMENT                         :      12th October, 2023
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : 
Instant appeal has arisen against the judgment and order dated 
28th February, 2018 passed by Learned DRT, Hyderabad dismissing the
SARFAESI Application No. 79 of 2017 (Nampally Kishan -vs- Telengana 
Grameena Bank & Another).
2.
As per the pleadings of the parties, Appellant is a washerman 
who availed a loan of Rs.3.00 lac from the first Respondent for 
construction of a house allotted to him       by the Government under 
Welfare Housing Scheme.  He mortgaged the house property in favour 
of the Bank.  Appellant was paying loan instalments regularly till 2013 
with slight irregularities.  A Demand Notice dated 15th June, 2016 was 
received for payment of Rs.3,70,292.00 within sixty days from the 
date 
of 
receipt 
of 
the 
notice.  
Thereafter, 
Appellant 
paid 
Rs.1,20,000.00 but on 13th December, 2016 Auction Notice was issued
by the Respondent Bank fixing 24th January, 2017 for auction with the 

2
      
Appeal No. 134 of  2018-DRAT-Kolkata
Reserve Price of Rs.10.75 lac.  No notice under Section 13 (4) of the 
SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was served 
upon the Appellant.  Neither Possession Notice  nor any notice under 
Rule 8 (6) or Rule 9 (1)of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 
2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) were received by the 
Appellant. Sale notice was also not affixed on a conspicuous part of the 
schedule property which is mandatory  under Rule 8 (7) of the Rules.   
3.
Respondent Bank filed opposition with the assertion that Notices
under Section 13 (2) and Section 13 (4) of the Act were duly served 
upon the Appellant. Notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act was also 
affixed on the schedule property and also publication in newspapers 
dated            
9th September, 2016 were made.  Sale notice dated 
17th October, 2016 was served personally  upon the Appellant on the 
same date. Valuation was fixed on the basis of the report of the 
Valuer. Auction sale was conducted on 24th January, 2017 and was 
sold in favour of Respondent No. 2, Md. Azmat Pasha, at  Rs. 11.77 
lac. Sale was confirmed on 24th January, 2017 and Sale Certificate was 
issued. Balance amount was sent to the Appellant who refused to 
receive the same. 
4.
It is stated in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the
Bank before the Learned DRT that the Possession Notice was issued on
30th August, 2016 and was published in newspapers; Indian Express 
and Sakshi Telugu, on           9th September, 2016. 
I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused 
the record.
5.
Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties Learned DRT 
arrived at a conclusion that Demand Notice was duly served upon the 
Appellant; sale notice was also affixed on a conspicuous part of the 
schedule property. Publication of the notices was duly made. 
Accordingly, dismissed the SARFAESI Application.
6.
Rule 8 (2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 reads
as under:

3
      
Appeal No. 134 of  2018-DRAT-Kolkata
“(2)
the possession notice as referred to in sub-rule (1) 
shall also be published 

…