Writ Petition No. 46772 of 2022 before the Hon’ble High

Reportable/ Not Reportable    
   IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
      (Appeal No. 68 of 2024)
(Arising out of S.A.I.R. No. 176 of 2023 in DRT—1, Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON
1.
Rajpurohith Praveen, S/o. Rajpurohith Asaji, Aged about 41 
years, Occ: Business, R/o.12-1-135, Pinnavari Street, 
Warangal, T.S. 
                   …Appellants
                                  -Versus-
1. 
The Indian Overseas Bank, Chief Manager and Authorised Officer 
Hanamkonda Branch, H. No. 2-5-614, Dmart side lane, 
Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal District Telangana State -
506001
                   …  Respondents
Counsel for the parties
Mr. Amancharla V. 
Gopala Rao,  Learned 
Counsel for  the 
Appellants
                                   
                                                           None for the 
Respondents
 
JUDGMENT                         
:   
    On   22nd August, 2024  
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :           
                
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and 
perused the record.  
Respondents are served but not 

2
represented.  At the very outset, it is to be observed that in 
this matter Indian Overseas Bank was duly served by the 
Appellant but despite service the officers of the Bank 
intentionally for the reasons best known to them avoided to 
appear in this Tribunal to contest the Appeal.  Such conduct 
of the Bank officers requires a thorough probe by the 
competent authority of the Bank as to why despite notice 
they have not put in appearance in the Appeal?  I left to the 
wisdom of the competent authorities of the Bank to hold an 
enquiry and fix the responsibilities on the concerned officers 
for their non-appearance.  
2.
As far as facts of the matter are concerned, instant 
Appeal is preferred against a judgment and order dated 8th 
April, 2024 passed by Learned DRT-1 Hyderabad in I.A. No. 
576 of 2023 arising out of SAIR No. 176 of 2023 whereby 
Learned DRT dismissed the Section 17 application filed by 
the Appellant holding the same to be time barred.  
3.
Feeling aggrieved Appellant preferred the Appeal. 
4.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that 
the Appellant is an auction purchaser who has challenged 
the notice of the Bank dated 01.09.2022 issued by the Bank 
forfeiting the bid amount of 25% deposited by the Appellant.  
It is stated that he was the successful bidder in the e-
auction held on  30th September, 2019.  25% of the bid 
amount was deposited by him.  He was always ready and 
willing to pay balance amount of 75% within 30 days.  But 
the Bank did not collect the same on the ground of some 

3
interim order passed by Learned DRT in S.A. No. 271 of 
2019.
5.
It is submitted that Section 17 Application was filed 
challenging the notice dated 01.09.2022 before the DRT on 
23.02.2023.  
Learned Counsel for the Appellant would 
submit that prior to filing of this Application,  Appellant filed 
a Writ Petition No. 46772 of 2022 before the Hon’ble High 
Court for the  State of Telangana Hyderabad which was 
decided on 2nd January, 2023. Hon’ble High Court held that  
remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 
2002 is  an effective and efficacious remedy. Writ Petition 
was dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the 
remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
6.
 SARFAESI Application was filed before the Learned 
DRT with an I.A. No. 576 of 2023 for condonation of delay 
on the ground that the Hon’ble High Court has passed the 
order in Writ Petition.  
Accordingly, Application under 
Section 17 is being filed before the DRT.  Learned DRT after 
considering the submissions dismissed this I.A. No. 576 of 
2023 holding that the Section 17 Application was not filed 
within the stipulated period of 45 days.      
7.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that 
the liberty was granted by the Hon’ble High Court for 
approaching the DRT by filing an application under Section 
17

…