Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/36776/2025 of MODEM ARUNA @ VALLAM ARUNA Vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA on 1 January 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.36776 of 2025 Between: 1.
APHC010711622025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
WRIT PETITION No.36776 of 2025
Between:
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. MODEM ARUNA @ VALLAM ARUNA, W/O LATE NARENDRA BABU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O D.NO.16-7-133, 2ND LANE, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, NELLORE - 524 003.
2. VALLAM AMARENDRA BABU, S/O LATE VALLAM NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE, MEDICAL & HEALTH DEPARTMENT, R/O D.NO.16/1716, 2ND LANE, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, NELLORE
- 524 003.
...PETITIONER(S) AND
1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH & TELANGANA, 6-1-63, SECRETARIAT ROAD, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD - 500 004.
2. DCB BANK LIMITED, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER/ BRANCH MANAGER, D.NO.17/281 & 17/282, TRUNK ROAD, NELLORE-524 001.
3. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE.
4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHINNA BAZAAR POLICE
STATION, NELLORE - 524 001.
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE, SPS NELLORE - 524 001.
6. PETATI LOKESH SAI KUMAR, S/O SUDHAKARA RAO, R/O PLOT NO.404, MADHURA NAGAR, ADITYA NAGAR, NELLORE, SPS NELLORE - 524 001.
7. V KAMAKSHI, W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O HARANADHAPURAM, NELLORE.
8. B MAMATHA, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED IN CRL.M.P. NO.354/2025
BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NELLORE, OFFICE AT BAR ASSOCIATION OF NELLORE, NELLORE DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, NELLORE.
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. 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.36776 of 2025 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
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 principal borrowers and the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nellore, in Crl.M.P.No.354 of 2025 in CF.No.617 of 2025, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition.
3. According to the petitioners, the principal borrowers have availed loan from the 2nd respondent-bank by playing fraud, even though the principal borrowers or their vendor are not the lawful owners of the secured asset, which is offered as security for repayment of the loan amount. The petitioners assert that the said secured asset is their ancestral property and they got right over it.
4. The petitioners have got an efficacious remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal for redressal of their grievance, even if the facts pleaded in the writ petition relating to the alleged fraud are assumed to be true.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the petitioners are not the principal borrowers and as they are no way concerned with the loan transaction and as the petitioners are affected by the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, they are constrained to approach this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition.
6. Even if the petitioners are not the principal borrowers and they are no way concerned with the loan transaction, still the expression “any person” used in Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is wide enough to include the petitioners also, who can approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for redressal of their grievance. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the petitioners are not the principal borrowers and as they are no way concerned with the loan transaction, they have filed this writ petition instead of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal is devoid of any merit. So, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and to entertain this writ petition when the petitioners have got an efficacious remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal for redressal of their grievance.
7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal concerned for redressal of their grievance.
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: 02.01.2026 IBL
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
WRIT PETITION No.36776 of 2025
Dt: 02.01.2026 IBL