Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
Maddineni Venkata Ratnam, S/o Thirupataiah – Appellant
Versus
Kanakamahalakshmi Cooperative Registered Bank Ltd. – Respondent
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 a
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.
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....
Judicial intervention is warranted to ensure timely consideration of appeals against coercive actions under the SARFAESI Act.
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
