THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.20428 OF 2025 Mr. Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Kandhika Karunakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (Online).

Mr. Srinivas Chitturu, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (Online).

Mr. Ganga Nageshwar Rao Thangapally, Party-in-person.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/guarantor, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Bank and the respondent No.3-Auction purchaser, who appears in person.

2. The Bank/secured creditor as well as the Auction purchaser have argued on the maintainability of the Writ Petition. According to the Bank, the petitioner has an effective statutory remedy under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘the 2002 Act’) in terms of approaching the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (‘DRAT’).

3. The Auction purchaser, in turn, submits that the Auction purchaser was declared as the highest bidder in terms of an Auction as per the paper notification dated 24.12.2020 (Notice) and paid Rs.85,00,000/- for the secured asset. A Sale Certificate was also issued by the Bank in favour of the Auction purchaser. It is also argued that the Auction purchaser has been driven from one court to another, in view of an earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner in 2021, but has not been able to obtain the secured asset despite payment of Rs.85,00,000/-.

4. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties.

5. We do not find any reason to entertain the Writ Petition in the face of section 18 of the 2002 Act, which gives a complete statutory remedy to the petitioner against the impugned order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad. The apprehension that the DRAT will only consider the effect of a later judgment given by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.No.357 of 2022 dated 24.01.2022, as opposed to the earlier judgment of the Madras High Court in W.P.No.9729 of 2009 dated 29.07.2009, is speculative since the DRAT is expected to consider the facts as well as the law relevant to the dispute between the parties.

6. There is also no compelling reason for us to entertain the Writ Petition when there are disputed facts brought to the notice of this Court.

7. W.P.No.20428 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above. The interim order granted by this Court on 16.07.2025 will continue till 17.11.2025. Needless to say, the petitioner shall have recourse to section 18 of the 2002 Act for redressal of his grievance. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J _____________________________

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J DATE: 29.10.2025 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO.20428 OF 2025

DATE: 29.10.2025