Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
Sandya Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal – Respondent
ORDER :
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
This writ petition is filed by the principal borrower and the guarantor against the docket orders of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, dated 29.10.2025 and 18.11.2025, passed in Miscellaneous Appeal Dy.No.1227 of 2025, which was filed against the order dated 07.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.3624 of 2025 in S.A.No.545 of 2025 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. When the borrower, who is the 1st petitioner committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the State Bank of India has initiated measures under the SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT , 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’). Relevant notice under the Act was issued to sell the secured asset. Challenging the same, the petitioners have approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, by way of filing S.A.No.545 of 2025. Along with the same, the petitioners have also filed I.A.No.3624 of 2025, seeking stay of the proceedings initiated by the bank. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, by order dated 07.10.2025, has declined to grant stay and dismissed the said sta
Parties must pursue remedies before the appellate authority before seeking relief from the High Court in matters already pending adjudication.
The impact of communication from the bank on the actions of auction purchasers and the compliance with the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules were central to the court's decision.
The petitioner should avail appellate remedy under Section 18 of the Act of 2002 to challenge the confirmation of sale by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Legal heirs may seek redress in Securitisation Applications under SARFAESI Act, but cannot maintain parallel proceedings in High Court.
Debtors must seek relief through appropriate forums like the Debts Recovery Tribunal, as per the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
The court emphasized the principle of exhausting alternative remedies before approaching the court and highlighted the importance of adhering to settled legal positions.
The court considered the jurisdictional issue of the DRT's decision on the question of title and the impact of the vacancy in the office of the Chairperson of the DRAT(M) on the petitioner's appeal.
The court can provide temporary relief to petitioners in possession notice cases under the Act when the Debts Recovery Tribunal is not functioning due to a vacancy in the post of Presiding Officer.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
