WP/28121/2025 of GADESINA GURAVA REDDY Vs THE UNION OF INDIA on 1 December 2025

1. GADESINA GURAVA REDDY, S/o. Late Gadesina Gurava Reddy, Aged about 55 years, R/o. D.NO.20-2-472/7F, Maruthi Nagar, Maruthi Nagar, Tirupathi, Tirupathi Dist. ...Petitioner AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, Rep. by its Secretary, Finance Department, New Delhi.

2. Axis Bank Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, D.No.30-22-79, Sree Towers, 1st Floor, Eluru Road, Seetharamapuram Circle, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520002.

3. Axis Bank Limited, Rep. by its Bank Manager, D.No.9/101/3, Ground Floor, M R Palli Road, Amaravathi Nagar, Tirupathi Town, Tirupathi Dist - 517501. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records relating to possession notice issued under Rule 8(1) and under Sec.13(4) of SARFESI ACT, Dt.22.09.2025 and quash the same as illegal without jurisdiction and violative Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and it offends principles of natural justice and to pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to stay the operation of notice issued under Rule 8 (1) of SARFESI Rules and U/Sec.13(4) of the said Act dt.22.09.2025 in respect of Loan Act Number PHR015205157209 at 3rd respondent Branch pending disposal of writ petition in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: T C KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order:

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. Challenging the legal validity of the notice under Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for brevity, 8the Rules9) and Section 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( for brevity, 8the Act9), issued by the second respondent-bank, while initiating measures under the Act, for recovery of the loan amount, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition on the grounds urged in the Writ Petition.

3. Petitioner has got an efficacious remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which is appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievance. Even challenging the legal validity of the notice, which is impugned in this petition, no valid reason is forthcoming for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.

4. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of filing a Securitization Application for redressal of his grievance within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till he approaches the Debts Recovery Tribunal, within the stipulated time, there shall be stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to the notice, dated 22.09.2025, issued under Rule 8 (1) of the Rules and Section 13 (4) of the Act. If the petitioner fails to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, within the stipulated period of six weeks, the aforesaid order of stay stands vacated without any further reference to this Court. The petitioner is at liberty to seek interim relief before the Debts Recovery Tribunal along with the Securitization Application that may be filed by him. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J

________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J 02nd December, 2025 Note: Issue C.C.of the order within one week. B/o Tsy