191090007722024_6a05343a8ac66a8d027e8aceb0c65a0d.pdf

Reportable/ Not Reportable    
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA 
(Appeal  No. 99 of 2024)
(Arising out of I.A. No. 944 of 2022 in S.A.I.R. 1205 of 2022 in 
DRT—II Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON
1.
HDB Financial Services Limited, having its Branch office at 
1st Floor, D. No. 1-8-616/1, Shree Balaji PSR Tower, 
Begumpet Prakash Nagar, Hyderabad – 500016 and also at 
3rd and 4th Floor, Hemalatha Mansion, 7-1-397/111 & 112, 
SR Nagar, Hyderabad – 500016.  
                   …Appellants
                                  -Versus-
1.
M/s Sree Sree Srinivas Construction, represented by its partner, 
Katta Cotessor Rao, residing at H. No. 8-2-676/1/D/12, Road 
No. 12, Sri Ram Nagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500034.
2.
Smt. Jayalaxmi Katta, wife of Katta Cotessor Rao, residing at 
H.No. 8-2676/1/D/12, Road No. 12, Sri Ram Nagar, Banjara 
Hills, Hyderabad 500034.
3.
Mrs. Mateen Ansari, wife of Mohd. Habeeb Shams Ansari, 
residing at D. No. 8-2-672, Road No. 13, Banjara Hills, 
Hyderabad – 500034.
                   …  Respondents
Counsel for the parties
Ms. Tutul Das Singh, 
Learned Counsel  for  
the Appellants
                                   
                                                           Mr. Nemani Srinivas, 
Learned Counsel   for 
the Respondents No. 1, 
2 and 3.
JUDGMENT                         
:   
    On 4th September, 2024 

2
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :           
Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the 
record.
2.
Instant Appeal has been preferred against a judgment 
and order dated 26.06.2024 passed by Learned DRT II 
Hyderabad in I.A. No. 944 of 2022 arising out of S.A.I.R. No. 
1205 of 2022 (Sree Sree Srinivas Constructions  versus HDB 
Finance Service Ltd.) wherein interest at @ 6% per annum 
simple 
was 
allowed 
on 
excess 
sale 
proceeds 
of 
Rs.2,46,37,408/- which is lying with the Appellants.   
3.
It appears from the record that the secured assets 
were mortgaged with the Appellants which were sold on 30th 
October, 2019 for an amount of Rs.6,09,00,000/-.  
An 
amount 
of 
Rs. 
3,62,62,592/- 
was 
due 
against 
the 
Respondent borrower which was deducted from the bid 
amount.  An amount of Rs. 2,46,37,408/- was the surplus 
amount lying with the Appellants.  On 25th January, 2020 an 
intimation was sent by the Appellants to the Respondents 
about the surplus amount.  Further it was stated that some  
articles in the property are lying with the Authorised Officer.  
Hence, the Respondent was asked to collect the same from 
the Authorised Officer.
4.
S.A.I.R. No. 1205 of 2022 was withdrawn by the 
SARFAESI Applicants.  Accordingly, leave was granted to 
withdraw the same by the DRT vide order dated 26.06.2024.  
5.
An order for refund of the excess amount was also 
made.  An objection was raised that since the SARFAESI  

3
Applicants have not collected the amount despite intimation, 
hence, they are not entitled for any interest.   
6.
Admittedly, amount was lying with the Appellants 
herein.    If intimation was given to the borrower to collect 
the amount and the amount was not collected, the same 
could have been transferred OnLine to the account of the 
SARFAESI Applicants which was not done.  It is not a case of 
forfeiture of the amount under the Rule 9(5) of the Security 
Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.  Rather, it is a case 
wherein auction sale was conducted.  Demanded dues were 
adjusted.  Thereafter, excess amount was lying with the 
secured creditor.  It was the responsibility of the secured 
creditor to transfer the excess amount to the account of the 
borrower since sale took place and demanded dues were 
adjusted.  When the secured creditor is enjoying the excess 
amount, definitely they are liable to make payment of 
interest to the borrower.  Accordingly, Learned DRT has 
granted interest @6% p.a. simple which is in accordance 
with law.  I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.  
Appeal lacks merit an

…