IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.229 OF 2026 DATE OF ORDER: 07.01.2026 Between:

Nallamalla Kameshwari …..Petitioner AND The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariat, Shastry Bhavan, New Delhi and Three Others …..Respondents Mr. V.Venkata Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondent No.1.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Petition has been filed against a Possession Notice dated 29.11.2025 issued by the respondent No.2.

2. The sole contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned Possession Notice was issued without a notice under section 13(2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’).

3. The contention is misconceived since Appendix IV of The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 clearly states that the said Notice in the Form given in Appendix IV can only be issued subsequent to Notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner already approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Hyderabad against payment of EMIs demanded by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein and obtained an interim stay order in I.A.No.72 of 2025 in C.C.No.60 of

2025 on 19.09.2025.

5. Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act clearly envisages that any person including borrower, aggrieved by any of the measures under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act taken by the Secured Creditor or his authorized officer, shall approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the limitation period of 45 days from the date on which such measure had been taken. The petitioner has also failed to show the applicability of any of the exceptions as laid down in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai1 which would allow the Writ Court to interfere despite the existence of an alternative efficacious remedy.

1 1998 (8) SCC 1

6. W.P.No.229 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate statutory forum by 29.01.2026. There shall be no order as to costs.

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J DATE: 07.01.2026 TJMR