K.SAHAJA RAO Vs. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, SBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned senior counsel Sri S.Ravi appearing for Sri V.Murali Manohar for petitioner (the borrower), and learned senior counsel Sri M.Narender Reddy appearing for Sri M.Srikanth Reddy for respondent-SBI (the bank) in W.P.No.21511 of 2020; learned senior counsel Sri Vivek Reddy appearing for Sri Manoj Reddy Keshi Reddy for petitioner (the auction purchaser), learned senior counsel M.Narender Reddy appearing for Sri M.Srikanth Reddy for respondent No.1 (the bank) and learned senior counsel Sri S.Ravi appearing for Sri V.Murali Manohar for respondent no.2 (the borrower) in W.P.No.13330 of 2021.

(2.) These two Writ Petitions concerns various measures taken by the State Bank of India to recover the loan amount from the borrower. As the Bank, the borrower and the auction purchaser are same, both Writ Petitions are heard together and decided by common order. For convenience, parties are referred to as borrower, the Bank and the auction purchaser respectively. The borrower is petitioner in W.P.No.21511 of 2020 and the auction purchaser is petitioner in W.P.No.13330 of 2021.

(3.) Borrower availed 3.40 crores from the Bank. Borrower defaulted in repayment of loan. On 29/3/2011 loan account was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). On 19/4/2011 the Bank issued demand notice under Sec. 13(2) for recovery of 2,79,31,113/-. On 5/7/2011 possession notice under Sec. 13(4) of the Act was issued and on 11/2/2012, physical possession of the mortgaged property was taken. On 29/2/2012, 2/5/2012 and 26/2/2017, respondent-Bank issued three e-auction notices fixing the auction dates. The borrower challenged all the e-auction notices before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Debts Recovery Tribunal granted conditional interim order. The borrower failed to comply with the conditional orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal by failing to make the payment. The three auction proceedings were unsuccessful.