Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
Nallamilli Sarada Devi, W/O Late Surya Chandra Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Represented By Its Branch Manager – Respondent
ORDER :
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
Heard Ms.V.Preeti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned Standing Counsel for 1st respondent-Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation.
2. As this writ petition is being disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, where the Securitisation Application of the petitioners filed in S.A.No.206 of 2025 is pending, notice to unofficial respondents 2 to 7 is dispensed with.
3. The respondents 2 to 7 are the principal borrowers, who availed loan from the 1st respondent-financial corporation. On account of the default committed by them in repayment of the loan amount, the 1st respondent- financial corporation has initiated measures under the SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT , 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) against the secured asset.
4. The petitioners claiming to be the legal heirs of a person by name Karri Radha Madhava Reddy, are claiming their share in the secured asset alleging that it is an ancestral property.
5. Challenging the measures initiated by the 1st respondent-financial corporation un
Legal heirs may seek redress in Securitisation Applications under SARFAESI Act, but cannot maintain parallel proceedings in High Court.
The court affirmed that statutory rights to challenge measures under the SARFAESI Act cannot be extinguished by writ issuance, directing the appellant to pursue remedies before the Debt Recovery Trib....
Writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings not entertainable due to alternative efficacious remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Writ petitions against SARFAESI actions should not be entertained due to the availability of alternative remedies.
The court affirmed that writ petitions against SARFAESI actions should not be entertained if alternative remedies exist, emphasizing the necessity of pursuing statutory procedures.
Writ petitions against recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act are not maintainable when an efficacious alternative remedy is available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Writ petitions against coercive proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are not maintainable when an efficacious alternative remedy is available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
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
