Legal heirs may seek redress in Securitisation Applications under SARFAESI Act, but cannot maintain parallel proceedings in High Court.

ORDER :

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.

Heard Ms.V.Preeti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned Standing Counsel for 1^st 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 1^st respondent-financial corporation. On account of the default committed by them in repayment of the loan amount, the 1^st 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 1^st respondent-financial corporation under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners have already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, which is an appropriate forum constituted under the special enactment under special mechanism for redressal of such grievances. Even though the petitioners are not the principal borrowers or the guarantors, they squarely come within the purview of the expression “any person” used in Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, they have challenged the said measures initiated by the 1^st respondent-financial corporation before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in S.A.No.206 of 2025. They have also filed I.A.Nos.79 and 80 of 2025 seeking interim relief against the measures initiated by the financial corporation.

6. So, as the petitioners have already availed the efficacious remedy available to them by way of filing Securitisation Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and to entertain the writ petition and permit the petitioners to maintain parallel proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam as well as before this Court, which is not permissible under law. However, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the interlocutory applications are not being considered and they are posted to 06.03.2026 to a distant date, even though there is an urgency to consider the said applications as the auction is scheduled to be held tomorrow i.e. on 20.01.2026. So, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam to consider the said interlocutory applications seeking interim relief and dispose of the same expeditiously by passing appropriate orders on it according to law.

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in the pending S.A.No.206 of 2025. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam shall take up I.A.Nos.79 and 80 of 2025 for hearing expeditiously and pass appropriate orders on it according to law. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.