WP/2298/2026 of MS HAIGREEVA INFRATECH PROJECTS LIMITED Vs The Debt Recovery Tribunal, on 27 January 2026

1. M/s. HAIGREEVA INFRATECH PROJECTS LIMITED, OFFICE D.No.1-54-5/8, PLOT NO. MIG 28 & 29, SWETHAYATHNA RESIDENCY, SECTION-1, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM REP. BY ITS MD CHILUKURI JAGADEESWARUDU.

2. CHILUKURI JAGADEESWARUDU, S/O.LATE RAMA RAO, OCC: MD OF M/S.HAIGREEVA INFRATECH PROJECTS LIMITED, R/O.D.NO.2-34/1, OLD DAIRY FARM, ADARSHANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-530020.

REP BY ITS REGISTRAR.

2. M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSET MANAGING BRANCH, 3RD FLOOR, 1-7-252 TO 254, OXFORD STREET, SD ROAD, SECUNDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE -500003 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

3. M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA, MI CORPORATE BRANCH, D.NO.10-50-143,

FEET WALTAIR MAIN ROAD, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 530003. REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.2298 of 2026 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

Heard Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Ms. V. Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The 1st petitioner is the borrower, who availed loan from the 3rd respondent-bank, and the 2nd petitioner is the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner-company as well as guarantor for the said loan transaction. As the petitioners have committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the bank has initiated measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’) to sell the secured asset in the auction for recovery of the loan amount due from the petitioners.

3. Admittedly, the petitioners have already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, by way of filing S.A.No.52 of 2026 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, challenging the said measures initiated by the bank. Alleging that the interlocutory application that was filed by them in I.A.No.312 of 2026, seeking stay of further proceedings in pursuance of the e-auction notice dated 08.01.2026 issued by the bank, is not being disposed of and it is posted to today even though the auction is scheduled to be held today itself, the petitioners have approached this Court, seeking stay of further proceedings pursuant to the said e-auction notice pending disposal of their stay application on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

4. As the petitioners have already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, seeking redressal of their grievance, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and to entertain the writ petition, permitting the petitioners to maintain parallel proceedings both before the Tribunal and this Court relating to the same relief, which is not permissible under law.

5. Further, as per the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the bank, the guarantors for the very same loan transaction have earlier approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No.2016 of 2026, aggrieved by the action of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in not disposing of the stay application filed by them, and this Court, by order dated 23.01.2026, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, to hear the stay application filed by them in I.A.No.257 of 2026 in S.A.No.48 of 2026 and decide the same on merits according to law on or before 27.01.2026 without fail.

6. We have gone through the said order. While directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal to dispose of the stay application on or before 27.01.2026 without fail, we have also directed that if the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is not present, the I.A. shall be decided by the Officer holding full additional charge.

7. Suppressing the said fact that the guarantors have already approached this Court and also the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the petitioners have approached this Court. In view of the orders passed earlier in the writ petition filed by the guarantors, we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. As both the borrowers and guarantors are before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, they have to pursue their remedy before the said Tribunal. This Court strongly deprecates the practice of approaching both the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the writ Court and maintaining parallel proceedings.

8. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, where the Securitisation Application filed by them is pending adjudication.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

______________________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 28.01.2026 IBL

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

WRIT PETITION No.2298 of 2026

Dt: 28.01.2026 IBL