Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Ms Delta printing house ors vs A O Andhra Bank and ors on 4 November 2026
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AT CHENNAI
Dated the 4th day of November, 2026
PRESENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN
CHAIRPERSON
MA (SA) 46/2019
(Arising out of IA 3782 of 2014 in IR 2671/2014 on the file of DRT, Karnataka at Bangalore)
Between
1. M/s.Delta Printing House (closed in the year 2000-01)
Rep. by Proprietrix, Mrs. Usha Kiran,
Gandhi Nagar, Hyderaba.
2. Smt. Usha Kiran,
W/o Sri A.P. Mahesh,
No. 118, 5th Main, 7th Cross,
N.R. Colony, Bangalore 560 019.
3. Sri A.P. Mahesh (died)
4. Appaji M. Ashwini,
D/o Late A.P. Mahesh,
No. 118, 5th Main, 7th Cross,
N.R. Colony, Bangalore 560 019.
5. Abishek Mahesh Appaji,
S/o Late A.P. Mahesh,
No. 118, 5th Main, 7th Cross,
N.R. Colony, Bangalore 560 019.
(Amended asper order dt. 17.11.2025 in IA 296/2025)
… Appellants
And
1. The Authorised Officer,
Specialized Asset Recovery Management Branch, Andhra Bank,
Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad 500 195.
2. The Branch Manager,
Andhra Bank Sultan Bazar,
Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad 500 195.
3. Dr. Vani, D/o E.R. Naidu, Major,
No.39 1st ‘B’ Cross, Bhavani Housing Colony, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bangalore 560 085.
4. Dr. D.R. Reddy @ D. Ramachandra Reddy, S/o D.M. Reddy, Major, No. 875, 11th “A’ Cross, J.P. Nagar 2nd Phase, Bangalore 560 070.
5. Dr Dilip Chakravarthy, Major,
S/o. Sri K.K. Murthy,
1st ‘B’ Cross, Bhavani Housing Colony,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bangalore 560 085.
6. Union Bank of India,
Erstwhile Andhra Bank,
Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad 500 195.
7. Union Bank of India,
Erstwhile Andhra Bank,
4-5-1 to 23, P.B. No. 518,
Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad 500 195.
( R6 & R7 Amended as per order dt. 30.01.2025 in IA 543/2022) …Respondents
Counsel for Appellants
:
M/s. V Mohan
Counsel for Respondents :M/s. R. Gowthama Narayanan-R1 & 2
R3 & R4 -Exparte.
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
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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,.
5. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that nothing survives in this appeal and the appeal has become infructuous.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant also endorses this view.
7. 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/- [Justice G. Chandrasekharan] Chairperson