WP/23483/2025 of VASUMATHI SAKKURTHI Vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK on 8 December 2025

1. VASUMATHI ABOUT 54 YE MOULI NAGAR

1. PUNJAB NAT OFFICER, C KAMAYYATHO ANDHRA PRA

2. PUNJAB NAT GUNTUR ST THEATRE CO 522001.

3. M/S SRI S.R. C SAKKURTHI V 60 YEARS, R/ NAGAR, GUN

4. SMT. SRIDEV HE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER O THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDR AND RABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GE RIT PETITION No.23483 of 2025 SAKKURTHI, W/O. VARA PRASA EARS, R/O D.NO 4-4-92, 2ND LANE R, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 5 ...P AND TIONAL BANK, REP. BY ITS A CIRCLE SASTRA CENTRE, KAVUR OPU CENTRE, KANURU,

VI DESH - 520007. TIONAL BANK, THE BRANCH TATION ROAD MAIN BRANCH, OMPLEX, GUNTUR, ANDHRA P CONSTRUCTIONS, REP. BY ITS PR VARA PRASAD S/O. RAMAIAH, AG /O. D.NO. 4-4-92 2ND LANE, CHAN TUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522007. I GUNTUPALLI, W/O. SRI PUVVADA DESH

R RANATH ROY EDELA AD, AGED E, CHANDRA 522007. PETITIONER AUTHORIZED RI TOWERS, JAYAWADA, MANAGER,

PALLAVI PRADESH - ROPRIETOR, GED ABOUT NDRA MOULI A PRADEEP

KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB, R/O.H.NO.5- 14-53, PALADUGU COMPLEX, NEAR BUS STAND, SATTENAPALLE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 522403. R4 WAS IMPLEADED AS PER C.O.DT.01.122025 VIDE I.A. No.2 OF 2025 IN WP No.23483 OF 2025. ...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. VINOD KUMAR PEMMASANI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. S SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY

2. HANUMANTHA RAO BACHINA

3. 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.23483 of 2025

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

This writ petition for Mandamus is filed to declare the action of the respondent bank in conducting sale through e-auction on 02.06.2025 without serving the sale notice to the petitioner under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, and without obtaining valuation certificate of the secured asset from an approved valuer and without proper affixation of the sale notice on the subject property, as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents not to issue any sale certificate pursuant to the confirmation of the sale dated 03.06.2025.

2. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Pemmasani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bachina Hanumantha Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. S. Satyanarayana Moorthy, learned counsel for respondent No.4. None appears for respondent No.3- borrower.

3. The 3rd respondent is the principal borrower, who availed loan from the 2nd respondent-bank. The petitioner stood as guarantor for the said loan transaction and offered her property as security for repayment of the loan amount. As the 3rd respondent 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’), and has put the secured asset of the petitioner for sale.

4. The petitioner has challenged the said measures initiated by the bank for sale of the secured asset for realization of the loan amount on various grounds which are urged in this writ petition. Before filing the writ petition, she has approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, which is the appropriate forum, for redressal of her grievance, by filing S.A.No.403 of 2025 challenging the said measures initiated by the bank for sale of the secured asset. She also sought for stay of further proceedings including issuance of sale certificate, by filing I.A.No.2806 of 2025. Alleging that the said interlocutory application is not being disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner has earlier approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No.19154 of 2025. A Coordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of the said writ petition on 23.07.2025 with a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to dispose of the said interlocutory application filed for stay on the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has dismissed the said stay application on 25.08.2025.

5. In the meanwhile, it appears that the sale was conducted by the bank. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.3187 of 2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, seeking amendment of the prayer in the S.A., and she has also filed I.A.No.3275 of 2025, seeking stay of further proceedings including issuance of sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser. As the said interlocutory applications are not being disposed of, the petitioner has again filed this writ petition seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

6. In this writ petition, this Court has passed an interim order on 03.09.2025, whereby operation of the order impugned is stayed and it was further directed that the possession of the petitioner in respect of the property in question shall not be disturbed till the next date of hearing and it was also directed that if the sale certificate is already issued, it shall not be registered and that all further proceedings initiated in terms of the SARFAESI Act shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

7. However, learned counsel for the respondent-bank as well as the learned counsel for the 4th respondent-auction purchaser would submit that even before passing the said interim order dated 03.09.2025, the sale certificate was already registered on 25.08.2025.

8. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as the lis is pending adjudication before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and as the petitioner has already filed an interlocutory application before the said Tribunal, seeking amendment of the prayer in the S.A. to challenge the confirmation of the sale, we deem it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, where the main S.A. is pending along with the said amendment application. The controversy involved cannot be decided in this writ petition and it has to be adjudicated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which is the appropriate forum under the SARFAESI Act.

9. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pursue her remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in S.A.No.403 of 2025, which is pending adjudication. The Debts Recovery Tribunal shall dispose of the interlocutory application in I.A.No.3187 of 2025, which is filed for amendment of the prayer in the aforesaid S.A., within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall dispose of the main S.A.No.403 of 2025 within three months from the date of disposal of the said amendment application. Till the said S.A. is disposed of within the time fixed above, the interim order dated 03.09.2025 to the extent of directing the respondents not to disturb the possession of the petitioner in respect of the property in question and staying further proceedings in terms of the SARFAESI Act shall be in force. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to cooperate with the Debts Recovery Tribunal in disposing of the amendment application in I.A.No.3187 of 2025 within one month and also in disposing of the main S.A. within three months thereafter as directed supra, the interim direction dated 03.09.2025 issued by this Court stands vacated without any further reference to the Court.

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: 09.12.2025 IBL

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

WRIT PETITION No.23483 of 2025

Dt: 09.12.2025 IBL