Ms Delta printing house ors vs A O Andhra Bank and ors on 4 November 2026

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

M.A(S.A):46/2019

M/S.Delta Printing House & Ors V/S Andhra Bank & Ors 04/11/2026

This appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Karnataka at Bengaluru on 14.01.2015 in IA 3782/2014. IA 3782/2014 has been filed to condone the delay of 580 days in filing the securitization application, which has been filed to set aside the sale conducted 04.08.2011, cancel the sale certificate dated 07.01.2013 and for other reliefs. The learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Karnataka at Bengaluru dismissed the IA 3782/2014 filed for condoning the delay and thus, this appeal. When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank produced a common order passed in WP Nos. 36694/2017(GM-DRT), WP 44284/2017(GM- RES), WP 55010/2017 (GM-DRT) AND WP 55012/2017 (GM-DRT). Writ petition in WP No.44284/2017 has been filed independently to quash the sale certificate dated 07.01.2013. Other writ petitions viz., WP 36694/2017 has been filed to set aside the order of this Tribunal passed in IA 204/2015 in AIR (SA) 81/2015, WP 55010/2017 has been filed to set aside the order of this Tribunal in AIR (SA) 374/2016 and WP 55012/2017 has been filed to set aside the order passed in IA 1339/2017 in AIR (SA)441/2014, on 27.07.2017. It is submitted that SAs concerning these writ petitions and in the appeal filed before this Tribunal relates to challenge TO the SARFAESI measures taken for taking possession and sale of the secured asset. Writ Petitions in WP 36694/2017, WP 55010/2017 and WP 55012/2017 had been filed against the order passed in the waiver applications. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, found certain defects in the sale, especially, the payment of balance sale consideration and thus, held that entire sale proceedings gets vitiated. The Bank was directed to refund the entire sale amount to the auction purchaser along with applicable interest. Bank was also given liberty to take action for recovery of the amount adhering to all the mandatory provisions contained in the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that nothing survives in this appeal and the appeal has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the appellant also endorses this view.

In view of the disposal of the writ petitions as aforesaid by setting aside the sale measures, this Tribunal finds that nothing survives in this appeal and thus, this appeal is dismissed as infrucuous. Parties shall bear their own costs. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-

Chairperson