WP/12678/2025 of BEVARA CHANDRA SEKHAR Vs THE UNION OF INDIA on 6 September 2026

1. BEVARA CHANDRA SE Business, Door No. 8-33- NTR District

1. THE UNION OF INDIA Government, New Delhi,

2. The Authorized Officer, Regd. Office, Edelweiss Ho ( East) Mumbai, Maharash

3. Arif Khan, S/o Asif Kha street, Wynchipet, Vijayawa

4. Akram Khan, S/o Asif K street, Wynchipet, Vijayawa Petition under Article circumstances stated in th HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND LE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDE PETITION NO: 12678 OF 2025 EKHAR, S/o Kanakaiah, aged about 58 119, Foreman Bunglow, Winehipeta, V .. AND A, Ministry of Finance, Rep by its S , Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Com ouse, 1st Floor, Off CST Road, Kalina tra. an, aged Major, R/o D. No. 131/2 Yo ada, NTR District Khan, aged Major, R/o D. No. 131/2 Yo ada, NTR District ...Re 226 of the Constitution of India praying e affidavit filed therewith, the High Co H

D ELA years, Occ Vijayawada, ..Petitioner ecretary to mpany Ttd, , Santacruz ousaf Khan ousaf Khan spondents g that in the urt may be pleased topleased issue appropriate writ, order particularly one m nature of writ of certiorari by quashing / set aside the order dated 14/03/2025 passed in lA 3844/2024 and lA 554/2025 in SA UN/2024 Dairy No. 2081/2024 by the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal, Vishakapatnam and direct them or direction more to ergister SA UN/2024 Diary No. 2081/2024 and take up the proceedings under SARFAESI Act and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to dispense with filing the certified copy of the order passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Vishakapatnam, pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to direct the respondents more particularly respondents no. 3 and 4 not to demolish the structures of the schedule property of the petitioner bearing Door No.8-33-119, Foreman Bunglow, Wynchipet, Vijayawada, NTR District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: RAMESH VISHWANATHULA and NASARAIAH GOLLA Counsel for the Respondents: T NIRANJAN Deputy Solicitor General of India Counsel for the Respondents: P BADRINATH Counsel for the Respondents: MOHAMMAD AARIF The Court made the following order:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

2. The present writ petition is filed questioning the common order dated 14.03.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in I.A.Nos.3844 of 2024 and 554 of 2025 in S.A.(UN)/2024 Diary No.2081/2024, whereby the applications filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the Securitization Application came to be dismissed.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the residential house bearing Door Nos.8-33-119 and 8-33-119A, Wynchipeta, Vijayawada, constructed in an extent of 117 square yards and had availed a loan of Rs.42,00,000/- from the respondent-Bank by mortgaging the said property. Owing to some financial difficulties occurred after the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent loss in business, he could not repay the amount. In view of the same, the respondent-Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the SARFAESI Act”) and brought the secured asset to sale pursuant to a sale notice dated 04.04.2024 without following due process of law. Thereafter, the auction was conducted on 09.05.2024, in which respondent Nos.3 and 4 were declared as successful bidders, and the sale was confirmed by confirmation letter, dated 14.05.2024. Aggrieved by the action of Respondent Nos.1 & 2, petitioner approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, by filing S.A.(UN)/2024, bearing Dairy No.2081 of 2024. Along with the said Securitization Application, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3844 of 2024 seeking condonation of delay of 114 days in filing the Securitization Application. It appears that notice was ordered in the said application and the respondents entered appearance and sought time for filing their counters.

4. It is further case of the petitioner that while the said application was pending before the Tribunal, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.4916 of 2025 seeking a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to dispose of I.A.No.3844 of 2024 expeditiously and also seeking protection in respect of the secured asset. This Court, by order dated 28.02.2025 in the said writ petition, directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, to dispose of I.A.Nos.3844 of 2024 and 554 of 2025 within one week. Pursuant thereto, the Tribunal passed the impugned common order dated 14.03.2025 dismissing the said applications.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Tribunal rejected the application filed seeking condonation of delay by recording that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, are not applicable to proceedings initiated under the provisions of Section 17 of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I Act and without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner for the delay, the said application was dismissed.

6. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal v. Bank of India1, and the judgment of the Division Bench of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Porus Laboratory Private Limited v. Indian Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Hyderabad, 20182.

7. The relevant paragraph No.20 of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reads as follows: “20. More importantly, it may be noted that if an aggrieved person, including a borrower, is prevented from availing the statutory remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act merely because the application thereunder was not presented within the stipulated 45 days, the hierarchy of remedies provided under the SARFAESI Act would be denied to him and rendered nugatory on that short ground. Such an aggrieved person would then be left with no remedy but to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. As the very purpose of creating statutory Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals is to provide efficacious alternative means of resolution of disputes so as to lessen the burden that would otherwise be visited upon the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, the statutory remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act cannot be interpreted in such a narrow and pedantic compass. Be it noted, by virtue of the proviso to Section 20(3) of the RDDB Act, the Appellate Tribunal has been held to have the power to condone the delay in the presentation of an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act beyond the 30 day period stipulated therein. There is no logic or rationale in not extending the same power to the Tribunal while entertaining a belated application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI

1 (2016) 1 SCC 444 2 SCC OnLine Hyd 161

Act, by taking recourse to Sections 17(7) and 37 of the SARFAESI Act read with Section 24 of the RDDB Act.”

8. The aforesaid judgment makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot reject an application filed seeking condonation of delay merely on the ground that it has no jurisdiction or power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 17 of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act.

9. In the present case, the impugned order does not disclose proper consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner for the delay of 114 days. The Tribunal appears to have proceeded primarily on the applicability of the law of limitation and has not considered whether the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for not approaching the Tribunal within the prescribed period.

10. In these circumstances, in our considered view the Tribunal has not considered the application for condonation of delay in the proper perspective and dismissed the impugned common order without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner.

11. In view of the same, the impugned common order dated 14.03.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in I.A.Nos.3844 of 2024 and 554 of 2025 in S.A.(UN)/2024 is set aside and remanded to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, for fresh consideration. The Tribunal shall consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law.

12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ BATTU DEVANAND, J

_______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J

Dated:07.09.2026 TJN/SZT

03 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Dated: 07.9.2026

TJN/SZT

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI

WRIT PETITION NO: 12678 OF 2025 PROCEEDING SHEET

SL. NO.

DATE

ORDER

OFFICE NOTE

07.9.2026

DEV, J & GTK, J

The Writ Petition is allowed. (Vide Separate Order) _______

DEV, J

_______

GTK, J TJN/SZT