WP/31725/2025 of M/s Vennala Poultries, Vs The Union of India on 17 November 2025

1. M/S VENNALA POULTRIES,, REP. BY ITS PROP. ROKKAM GNANESWARI D/O. BABU RAO, AGED 42, R/O. DOOR NO. 80-3-5, VIKAS NAGAR, J.N ROAD, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 533101.

2. SRI ROKKAM CHITTI BABU,, S/O. BABU RAO, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. DOOR NO.46-7-19/2, FLAT NO. G-4, PADMAVATHI APARTMENT, DANAVAIPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 533235

...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE UNION OF INDIA, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANAD MARG, NEW DELHI. 110001.

2. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, CHITRALAYA ROAD NEAR LEELAMAHAL ROAD DABA GARDENS, JAGADAMBA JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530

020.

3. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, DOOR NO. 46-20-15, BESIDE CHINNA ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPEL, DANAVAIPET BRANCH, RAJAHMUNDRY - 533235.

4. VUDATHA RAVI ROHITH, S/O. UNKNOWN, APPOINTED AS ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN CRI.M.P. NO. 384 OF 2024 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM AT RAJHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. R/O.2-28-7, VUDATHA VARI STREET, DAWALESWARAM - 533125.

...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SITA RAM CHAPARLA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. V DYUMANI

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.31725 of 2025 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Heard Mr. Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Ms. V. Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent- Union Bank of India, who is the answering respondent and who filed caveat.

2. Since we are disposing of this writ petition with a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to dispose of the stay petition filed by the petitioners before it expeditiously in view of the urgency that is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, notice to respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 is dispensed with.

3. The 1st petitioner is the principal borrower, who availed loan from the 3rd respondent-bank. The 2nd petitioner stood as guarantor for discharge of the loan amount and offered his properties as security for repayment of the loan amount. As the 1st petitioner committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the 3rd respondent-bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the secured assets. It appears that two items of properties were offered as security for repayment of the loan amount. Physical possession of one such property was already taken as per the proceedings initiated under the Act and possession of the other property which is a residential house is sought to be taken. Challenging the said proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent to take possession of the residential house, the petitioners have already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, by filing S.A.No.668 of 2025, and along with the same, they have also filed a stay application in I.A.No.4036 of 2025 on 04.11.2025. During pendency of the said S.A. and stay application, the petitioners have now approached this Court, challenging the same proceedings before this Court.

4. When once the petitioners have already availed their remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, they cannot again approach this Court by way of invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and maintain parallel proceedings. So, since the proceedings are already pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere in this writ petition to decide the lis.

5. However, the grievance of the petitioners, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners now, is that even though the possession of the residential house is sought to be taken and they have filed an application for stay in view of the urgency, the Debts Recovery Tribunal is not deciding the said stay application. Therefore, in view of the said limited grievance of the petitioners, we are of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to consider the said stay application in I.A.No.4036 of 2025 in S.A.No.668 of 2025 expeditiously and decide the same according to law. It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-bank that the said stay application in which notice was ordered is posted to 25.11.2025 itself.

6. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, to dispose of the stay application filed by the petitioners in I.A.No.4036 of 2025 in S.A.No.668 of 2025 on or before 28.11.2025 on merits according to law. Till then i.e., till 28.11.2025, the 3rd respondent-bank shall not take any steps to take physical possession of the residential house property. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

______________________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 18.11.2025

Note:- Issue CC by 19.11.2025. IBL

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

WRIT PETITION No.31725 of 2025

Dt: 18.11.2025 IBL