AND WRIT PETITION NO.13260 OF 2025 Ms. Rama Sita Boddani, learned counsel for the petitioner (Online)

representing Mr.Ramana Allu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

1. The Writ Petition is clearly not maintainable.

2. The petitioner has challenged a docket order passed by The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Hyderabad dated 09.04.2025. By the impugned order, the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) rejected the request for interference with the proceedings initiated by the respondent-Bank of the petition schedule property under the provisions of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the SARFAESI Act). The respondent-Bank was however directed to go ahead with the Auction but not to confirm the sale in favour of the highest bidder in the Auction Sale which was to be held pursuant to the Auction Sale Notice dated 05.03.2025. The Auction was fixed on 14.04.2025. The interim protection given to the petitioner was subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.20,00,000/- in two installments; the first installment of (Rs.10,00,000/-) was to be deposited on or before 23.04.2025 and the second installment of (Rs.10,00,000/-) which to be deposited on or before 07.05.2025. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner needs urgent relief in respect of the direction on the petitioner to deposit Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. The petitioner does not have any answer as to why the petitioner did not approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) from the impugned order. Admittedly, the petitioner has an effective alternative statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and others1. However, it is clear from the submission that counsel seeks to rely on the alleged violation of principles of natural justice in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any such violation since the petitioner before this Court was also the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal who sought remedy.

1 (2024) 6 SCC 579

6. The petitioner also does not have any answer to continue the interim protection given by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the impugned docket order dated 09.04.2025.

7. The present case does not fall within any of the exceptions mentioned in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1. We hence do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned docket order passed by the DRT.

8. W.P.No.13260 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed.

Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J ______________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J Date: 01.05.2025 PLV

AND WRIT PETITION NO.13260 OF 2025 Dated: 01.05.2025 PLV