Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, Tuhin Kumar Gedela, JJ.
Maddineni Venkata Ratnam, S/o Thirupataiah - Petitioner
Versus
Kanakamahalakshmi Cooperative Registered Bank Ltd. And Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No: 33489 of 2025
Decided On : 01-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. default in loan repayment and tenant rights. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. urgency in seeking relief and procedural delays. (Para 4) |
| 3. proper forum for grievance redressal. (Para 5) |
| 4. interim relief granted pending further proceedings. (Para 6) |
ORDER :
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. On the premise that the principal borrower, which is the 2nd respondent firm, represented by respondents 4 and 5, which availed loan from the 1st respondent-bank, has committed default in repayment of the said loan amount, the bank has brought the secured asset for sale for realization of the loan amount.
3. The petitioner is a third party to the said loan transaction and he claims to be a tenant in respect of the secured asset under the 2nd respondent and running a hotel in it. It is his grievance that if the possession of the secured asset is taken pursuant to the measure initiated by the 1st respondent-bank for realization of the loan amount under the SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT , 2002, he would put to irreparable loss. So, the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and filed S.A.No.672 of 2025 for redressal of his grievance.
4. Now it is the grievance of the writ petitioner that even though the said S.A. was filed long back on 09.11.2025, that no order of stay is passed and the proceedings are adjourned to 29.12.2025 while ordering notices to the respondents therein. Therefore, in view of the urgency as the possession of the secured asset may be taken at any moment of time, the petitioner has approached this Court.
5. As the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, which is an appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and entertain the writ petition.
6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and pursue his petition which is filed therein along with interlocutory application seeking interim orders. However, as it is said that the S.A. and interim application were posted to 29.12.2025, there shall be interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.246 of 2025 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Visakhapatnam, in respect of the secured asset till 29.12.2025. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam shall take up the interlocutory application for hearing on 29.12.2025 and pass appropriate orders on it, according to law. If the petitioner fails to turn up for hearing on 29.12.2025 in his application filed seeking interim relief, the interim order granted in this writ petition shall stand vacated without any further reference to this Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
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.
Parties must pursue remedies before the appellate authority before seeking relief from the High Court in matters already pending adjudication.
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.
Legal heirs may seek redress in Securitisation Applications under SARFAESI Act, but cannot maintain parallel proceedings in High Court.
A petitioner must pursue statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction concerning property repossession under SARFAESI Act.
A borrower defaulting on loan repayment must seek remedies through the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act, not by writ petition.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of examining substantive issues through the appropriate statutory remedy, discouraging the filing of writ petitions under Article....
Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed facts under Article 226, directing petitioners to seek redress from the appropriate tribunal.
Judicial intervention is warranted to ensure timely consideration of appeals against coercive actions under the SARFAESI Act.
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
