Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
MR NARAYANA MUKUNDA REDDY vs IDFC FIRST BANK LTD on 6 July 2026
-05-
RA 06 | 2025
06.07.2026
06.07.2026
Review Application No.6 of 2025 stands
dismissed vide separate order.
Presiding Officer
This image shows a blank, aged, cream-colored page. The paper has a slightly textured appearance with some minor discoloration and faint creases, particularly towards the bottom. A small, dark, irregular speck is visible in the upper right corner. There is no text or other markings on the page.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI
Dated the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July, 2026
**REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 6 OF 2025**
**IN**
**SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.435 OF 2023**
Between
1. 1. Narayana Makunda Reddy,
S/o H D Narayana Reddy,
Karnataka-560099.
(And also at 66 & 67, 39A and 396,
Artha Rivera Masur Gate,
Chandapura, Bengaluru, Karnataka).
1. 2. Manjula N,
W/o Narayana Makunda Reddy,
Karnataka-560099,
(And also at 66 & 67, 39A and 196,
Arths Rivera Masur Gate,
Chandapura, Bengaluru, Karnataka.
...Petitioners/Applicants
And
1. 1. The Authorised Officer,
Having its registered office at
IDFC First Bank Limited,
KRM Towers, 7<sup>th</sup> Floor, 1,
Harrington Road, Chelpet,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600031
And branch among other places at 79,
Residency Road, Richmond Town,
Bengaluru, Karnataka-560025.
1. 2. K Neela,
W/o late K Govindasumy Naidu,
29/A, 2<sup>nd</sup> Main, 7<sup>th</sup> Cross, Rangappa Layout, BSK Stage-3, Bengaluru, Karnataka -560085.
1. 3. G Nethravathi,
W/o Shivaith Naidu,
29/A, 2<sup>nd</sup> Main, 7<sup>th</sup> Cross, Rangappa Layout, BSK Stage-3, Bengaluru, Karnataka -560085.
4. Ashwini U,
W/o Balakrishna Naidu,
29/A, 2<sup>nd</sup> Main, 7<sup>th</sup> Cross, Rangappa Layout, BSK Stage-3, Bengaluru, Karnataka -560085.
5. T Shivaiah Naidu,
S/o late T Chinnabha Naidu,
29/A, 2<sup>nd</sup> Main, 7<sup>th</sup> Cross, Rangappa Layout, BSK Stage-3, Bengaluru, Karnataka -560085. .... Respondents/defendants This Review Application having been heard on 10.04.2026 in the presence of Advocates M/s K Gajendra Vasu and Kumari M for the petitioners/applicants, and Advocates M/s V Suresh and M Anitha for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent/1<sup>st</sup> defendant, and Advocates M/s Omkar Basava Prabhu and Suchitra for the 2<sup>nd</sup> to 5<sup>th</sup> respondents/2<sup>nd</sup> to 5<sup>th</sup> defendants, and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following: -
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Review Application No.6/2025 was filed on 25.03.2025 under R.5A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (as amended from time to time) – for short 'the Rules' - praying to review and recall the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by this Tribunal in SA No.435 of 2023. The review petitioners are none other than the applicants in the SA 435 of 2023.
2. The present review application is filed by the review petitioners/applicants seeking review and recall the order passed in SA No.435/2023. The review petitioners/applicants contend that the postal track consignment report, the notice dated 16.07.2022 was delivered to the jurisdictional post office on 19.07.2022 and the review petitioners/applicants received on 20.07.2022. In order to prove the date of delivery the review petitioners/applicants relied upon the postal tract consignment report and actual delivery is on 20.07.2022, on this ground the application need to be allowed. The auction was fixed on 03.08.2022 without giving clear 15 days of notice period to the review petitioner/applicants and the property has been auctioned within 15 days of the notice period. Hence the review petitioner/applicants seeks review and recall the order dated 31.01.2025.
3. Per contra, the 1<sup>st</sup> respondents/1<sup>st</sup> defendants in the SA opposes the Review Application contending that a review is only maintainable on the ground of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. The 1<sup>st</sup> respondents/1<sup>st</sup> defendants issued the sale notice dated 16.07.2022 with due compliance of exhausting mandatory days for fixing the date of bid and the date of auction. All steps of recovery initiated by the bank are within the ambit of the SARFAESI proceedings.
4. The 2<sup>nd</sup> to 5<sup>th</sup> respondent/2<sup>nd</sup> to 5<sup>th</sup> defendant filed joint statement of objection and contending that the application is not maintainable. It is further contended that the review petitioners/applicants are estopped from challenging the validity of the auction sale at this juncture, having tactically acquiesced to the proceedings by their failure to approach the Hon'ble DRAT as specifically directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W P No.17467/2022. Hence, dismiss the application.
5. I have considered the submissions and perused the material on record. The only point arises for consideration is as to whether the review petitioners/defendants are entitled to the relief prayed for?
6. The review petitioners/applicants contend that though the postal tracking report mentions delivery on 19.07.2022, the article had only reached the jurisdictional post office on that date and was actually delivered to them on 20.07.2022. It is argued that consequently the mandatory notice period was not complied with. This Tribunal finds that the said contention had already been considered while deciding the Securitisation Application. The postal tracking report available on record reflects "Item This image is a scan of a blank white piece of paper. It contains no text, figures, or tables. There are a few very small, faint dark specks scattered across the page, which appear to be scanning artifacts or dust particles. The overall background is a uniform off-white color.
Delivery Confirmed" on 19.07.2022. Except making a bald assertion, the applicants have not produced any documentary evidence from the postal authorities to establish actual delivery on 20.07.2022. The tribunal had also taken note of the fact that the sale notices sent to the applicants were not returned undelivered and therefore service was presumed. The findings recorded in the final order are based on appreciation of the material available on record. The review petitioners/applicants are essentially seeking re-appreciation of evidence and rehearing of the matter, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. No error apparent on the face of the record is made out warranting interference.
7. Accordingly, the Review Application No.6/2025 stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
*[Dictated to my P.A. transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July, 2026]*
[ IMTIAZ ALI]
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July, 2026
**REVIEW APPLICATION NO.6 OF 2025**
**IN**
**SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.435 OF 2023**
Between
Narayana Makunda Reddy, S/o H D Narayana Reddy,
Karnataka-560099, (And also at 66 & 67, 39A and 396, Artha Rivera Masur Gate, Chandapura, Bengaluru, Karnataka). ..... Petitioners
And
The Authorised Officer, Having its registered office at IDFC First Bank Limited, KRM Towers, 7<sup>th</sup> Floor, 1, Harrington Road, Chelpet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600031 And branch among other places at 79, Residency Road, Richmond Town, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560025, And four others. .... Respondents
**ORDER**
A 6.7.26