WP/89/2026 of SIGILIPELLI VENKATARAMANA Vs THE UNION OF INDIA on 5 January 2026

1. SIGILIPELLI VENKA 62 YEARS, OCC. R TOWN AND DISTR

2. SIGILIPELLI PADM ABOUT 56 YEARS DISTRICT.

1. THE UNION OF NORTH BLOCK, NE

2. THE DEBT RECO NARAYAN BHAVA VISAKHAPATNAM

3. M/S AXIS FINANCE AXIS HOUSE, GRO WORLI, MUMBAI Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased to issue an appro E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G WRIT PETITION NO: 89/2026 ATARAMANA, S/O LATE BODDU, RETD, DOCTOR, DHARMAPURI, VI RICT. MA GOWRI, W/O VENKATARAMA S, DHARMAPURI, VIZIANAGARAM ...P AND INDIA, REP BY ITS FINANCE D EW DELHI OVERY TRIBUNAL DRT, DOOR AN, SAI BABA STREET, DABA

- 530020 E LIMITED, REP, BY ITS AUTHORI OUND FLOOR, PANDURANGA BUD ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High opriate writ, order or direction more pa DESH

DRANATH ROY GEDELA AGED ABOUT IZIANAGARAM ANA, AGED M TOWN AND PETITIONER(S) DEPARTMENT NO 31-31-21, A GARDENS, ZED OFFICER DHKAR MARG, SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be articularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No 2 to extend the time for depositing the amount pursuant to the order passed in SA No.705/2025 dt 25.11.2025 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. A.SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-Union of India.

2. Since we are disposing of this writ petition with a direction to the petitioners to approach the 2nd respondent-Debts Recovery Tribunal and seek redressal of their grievance regarding extension of time to deposit the amount, as ordered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal while granting stay, notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 is dispensed with.

3. The petitioners are the principal borrowers, who committed default in repayment of the loan amount. Therefore, the 3rd respondent-financial institution has initiated measures under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’), to take possession of the secured asset and to sell the same in the public auction for realization of the loan amount.

4. Challenging the said measures initiated by the financial institution, the petitioners have already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of filing securitization application No.705 of 2025 and also filed an interlocutory application, seeking stay of further proceedings. The Debts Recovery Tribunal has granted stay on condition of depositing Rs.2,20,00,000/-. But, the petitioners have failed to deposit the said sum of Rs.2,20,00,000/- and they have deposited only Rs.20,00,000/-. Therefore, they did not fulfill the condition imposed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal while granting stay of further proceedings.

5. Alleging that the presiding officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal is on training till 05.01.2026, they have approached this Court by way of filing the writ petition, seeking extension of time. When the order of stay was granted by the Tribunal and when it has imposed a condition for granting stay, a decision whether to extend time or not is to be taken by the Tribunal itself. So, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and to entertain this writ petition. It is stated that the stay petition stood posted to 20.01.2026. So, the petitioners can approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal on that day and make a request and it is for the Tribunal to decide whether to grant time or not and it is entirely within the discretion of the Tribunal. It is also brought to our notice that the presiding officer of the Tribunal resumed duty today after completion of the training.

6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal on or before 20.01.2026 and seek redressal of their grievance. Till 20.01.2026, the respondents are directed not to take further steps to take possession of the property till their request, whether to extend time or not is decided by the Tribunal. 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: 06.01.2026 MDP