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....
The court provided protection to the petitioner until the securitization application is heard by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, considering the non-functioning of the tribunal due to the vacancy of the....
Judicial restraint should be exercised by courts in recovery processes when efficacious alternative remedies are available.
The court's decision was influenced by the pending securitization application and the need to provide limited protection to the petitioner until the application is considered by the Debts Recovery Tr....
Borrowers may be entitled to limited protection under the SARFEASI Act when facing proceedings due to the non-availability of the Presiding Officer in the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Parties must pursue remedies before the appellate authority before seeking relief from the High Court in matters already pending adjudication.
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
