Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/9968/2026 of BARLA LATHA Vs THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, BANK OF INDIA, SSI BRANCH on 15 April 2026
BARLA LATHA Vs THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, BANK OF INDIA, SSI BRANCH & ORS Present: Mr.Perla Nooka Raju, Advocate for petitioner. *** Writ Petition is disposed of . (Vide Separate order) (LISA GILL) JUDGE (NINALA JAYASURYA) JUDGE Date: 16.04.2026 BLV
APHC010172842026
IN THE HIG
WRIT
Barla Latha
Vs.
The Authorized Officer, Ban
SSI Branch and Others
CORAM : HON’B
HON’B
DATE : 16th A
Advocate for Petitioner
GH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
T PETITION NO: 9968 of 2026
Be
nk Of India,
...Res
BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURY
April 2026
**********
:
Mr.Perla Nooka Raju
ench Sr.No:-3
...Petitioner
spondent(s)
YA
LISA GILL, J
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Admittedly, petitioner has filed S.A.No.468 of 2025 before Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Visakhapatnam, challenging proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI) initiated against her.
2. Grievance raised by petitioner is that during pendency of said S.A., learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in Crl.M.P.No.2 of 2025 has directed appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the schedule properties and petitioner filed I.A.No.3179 of 2025 for stay of said proceedings. However, the matter is still pending adjudication and is listed on 09.06.2026 as of now. It is apprehended that coercive steps, in the meanwhile, shall be taken by the respondent-Bank rendering the application filed by petitioner before learned DRT, infructuous.
3. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the file, however, we do not find any ground for interference, at this stage in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Petitioner has already availed of the statutory remedy (ies) available to her, in accordance with law. All arguments as are being raised before us are well within the realm of consideration by learned DRT. In the given factual matrix, it is directed that in case, petitioner files an application seeking pre-ponement of date of hearing before DRT within one week, the same be entertained by learned DRT, in accordance with law, and expeditiously dispose of I.A.No.3179 of 2025 filed in S.A.No.468 of 2025 in order to obviate any prejudice to writ petitioner.
4. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of with no expression of opinion on merits of the matter. No costs.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly.
(LISA GILL) JUDGE
(NINALA JAYASURYA) JUDGE Date:16.04.2026 BLV
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
Writ Petition No.9968 of 2026 16th April, 2026
BLV