WP/34337/2025 of GIRIJALA UDAYA LAKSHMI Vs UGRO CAPITAL LTD on 6 January 2026

1. GIRIJALA UDAYA L 52 YEARS, R/O D.N

1. UGRO CAPITAL LT Park, Tower 3, 4th F Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased to issue a writ Mandamus declaring t Respondent as violative besides being in violatio directing not to proceed f IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Secti in the affidavit filed in sup direct the Respondent n Notice Dt:5.11.2025 pend

E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUAR O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 34337/2025 LAKSHMI, W/O G GURU PRASAD, NO.20D-1-4, GANUGULAPETA, ELU AND TD, rep by its Authorized Officer Eq Floor, LBS Road, Kurla (West), Mumb ...R le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High / order or direction particularly in th the Auction Notice Dt.9.12.2025 e of Art., 14 and 300-A of the Cons on of SARFEASI Act and the Rules further and pass on 151 CPC praying that in the circum pport of the petition, the High Court ma ot to conduct Auction Dt:9.12.2025 v ding W.P. and pass DESH

RY DRANATH ROY GEDELA AGED ABOUT RU - 534 002 ...PETITIONER uinox Business bai -400070 RESPONDENT aying that in the h Court may be e nature writ of issued by the stitution of India on the subject, mstances stated ay be pleased to vide the Auction

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. POTHINA GAGAN KARTHIK Counsel for the Respondent:

1. The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is a third party to the loan transaction. She is neither a borrower nor a guarantor. Claiming to be the GPA holder of the principal debtor, she has filed this writ petition to challenge the measures initiated by the respondent-financial institution under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the principal borrower, who has committed default in repayment of the loan amount, for recovery of the loan amount.

3. To a pointed question, as to why the petitioner has not approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which is the appropriate forum, constituted under the statute for redressal of the grievances relating to the measures initiated by the Bank and financial institution, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as the petitioner is a third party to the loan transaction that the Debts Recovery Tribunal is not entertaining the application filed by the third parties. In fact, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner has filed any securitization application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and it has returned or rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner is a third party to the loan transaction. In fact, the Section 17 of the Act itself starts with the expression “any person”, which is wide enough to cover all persons other than the principal debtors and guarantors and any aggrieved person can initiate proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

4. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and to entertain the writ petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the measures taken by the financial institution, she has to seek her remedy before the appropriate forum constituted under the Act.

5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal and challenge the measures initiated by the financial institution on the grounds which are urged in this writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Date: 07.01.2026 MDP