WP/438/2026 of M/S N V EXPORTS Vs THE UNION OF INDIA on 6 January 2026

1. M/S N.V.EXPORTS, PLOT NO.A-7B INDUSTIAL ESTATE, KURNOOL ROAD, ONGOLE-523002

2. MR.NUSUMU VENKATESWARA REDDY, MANAGING PARTNER CUM MORTGAGER, S/O NUSUMU VENKATA REDDY, DOOR NO.7-35, SUNNAM BATTI BAZAR, KURNOOL ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT – 523002.

3. MRS.NUSUMU JYOTHI, MANAGING PARTNER CUM MORTGAGER, W/O NUSUMU VENKATESWARA REDDY, DOOR NO.7-35, SUNNAM BATTI BAZAR, KURNOOL ROAD,ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT– 523002.

...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, 110001.

2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, OPPOSITE. HCM DEGREE COLLEGE, MIRIYAPALEM , ONGOLE,PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.523001.

3. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, REP.BY ITS. REGISTRAR, 31-32-54, CHITRALAYA RAOD , NEAR LEELA MAHAL ROAD DABA GARDENS,JAGADAMBHA CENTRE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH – 530020.

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

1. MOHAMMAD NAYAB RASOOL Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. G. NANDINI

2. G. SUDHA MADHURI 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.438 of 2026

O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

Heard Mr. Md. Nayab Rasool, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. G. Nandini, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Ms. G. Sudha Madhuri, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-bank.

2. Challenging the measures initiated by the 2nd respondent-bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’) for realization of the loan amount due from the petitioners, who are the borrowers, the petitioners have already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, by way of filing S.A.No.796 of 2025 and also sought stay of the e-auction scheduled to be conducted by way of filing I.A.No.5082 of 2025. However, without pursuing their remedy before the said Tribunal, they have again approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition.

3. As the petitioners have already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which is the appropriate forum constituted for redressal of such grievances, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and to entertain the writ petition and permit the petitioners to maintain parallel proceedings both before this Court and the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which is not permissible under law.

4. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-bank that the said I.A.No.5082 of 2025 is posted before the Debts Recovery Tribunal today only for hearing. If that be the case, the petitioners can pursue the same before the Tribunal.

5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, where the aforesaid S.A.No.796 of 2025 and I.A.No.5082 of 2025 filed by them are 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: 07.01.2026 IBL

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

WRIT PETITION No.438 of 2026

Dt: 07.01.2026 IBL