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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed against orders of the appellate tribunal. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioners must pursue remedy before appellate authority. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. writ petition disposed directing applicants to follow appellate procedures. (Para 7) |
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
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 availability of statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking Article 226 for disputes involving financial recoveries.
The petitioner's remedy to contest disputed loan recovery lies with the Debts Recovery Tribunal, not the High Court.
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.
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
