WP/21548/2025 of A. VASU DEVA RAO Vs INDIA INFOLINE FINANCE LIMITED (IIFL) HOME LOAN on 5 November 2025

1. A. VASU DEVA R YEARS, R/O COL PRADESH.

1. INDIA INFOLINE F AUTHORIZED OFF OPPOSITE BELLA DISTRICT.

2. INTERNATIONAL A LIMITED LARC, RE 601, 6TH FLOOR, 2 (EAST), MUMBAI, S Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased to Pleased to is particularly one in the na respondents in not permi amount of 4,27,482.50 a under the provisions of t E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 21548/2025 RAO, S/O A. ADINARAYANA, AGE LANY, BEJJI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRI AND INANCE LIMITED IIFL HOME LOAN FICER, R/O 1ST FLOOR, RING ROA AM MARKET, ANAKAPALLI, VISA ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPA EP., BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNAT 215 ATRIUM, ANDHERI - KURLA RO STATE OF MAHARASHTRA-400093. ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High ssue an appropriate Writ, Order, or ature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring itting the petitioner to remit the total o and proceeding with the auction da the SARFAESI Act-thereby taking po DESH

R DRANATH ROY GEDELA ED ABOUT 33 CT, ANDHRA ...PETITIONER N, REP. BY ITS AD JUNCTION, AKHAPATNAM ANY PRIVATE TORY, R/O A- OAD, ANDHERI . SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be Direction, more the action of the outstanding loan ated 26.03.2025 ossession of the mortgaged property bearing Plot No. 22 (North Part), Perams Aditya Varna, Phase Sy. No. 282/1P, Layout No. 117/2017, situated at Tatituru Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Anandapuram, Visakhapatnam District-without affording the petitioner reasonable time or opportunity to clear the dues, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, (a) direct the respondents to accept the full and final loan repayment of 4,27,482.50 and set aside the auction proceedings dated 26.03.2025 and (b) direct the respondents to restore possession of the said mortgaged property to the petitioner and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SONTI GOPI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. HEMADRI V S S R R CHANDRAKANTH

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

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hemadri.V.S.S.R.R. Chandrakanth, learned counsel for respondent No.1-India Infoline Finance Limited (IIFL) Home Loan.

2. The petitioner is the borrower who has availed loan from respondent No.1. The petitioner has offered the property in question as security for the loan that was availed from respondent No.1. As the petitioner has committed default in re-payment of the loan amount, respondent No.1 has initiated proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’), and brought the secured asset for sale in the auction and sold the same. Challenging the said sale and the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, on the ground that without following the procedure prescribed under the Act that the proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has taken objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal and without approaching the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance that the petitioner has approached this Court. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of South Indian Bank

Ltd. and others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and others1. The Apex Court in the said judgment has deprecated the practice of entertaining the writ petitions in such commercial matters where an efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute to adjudicate the disputes relating to the said lis. In para No.13 of the judgment, the Apex Court held has follows: “We may, however, reiterate the settled position of law on the interference of the High Court invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India in commercial matters, where an effective and efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute. We are also constrained to take judicial notice of the fact that certain High Courts continue to interfere in such matters, leading to a regular supply of cases before this Court.”

4. Therefore, in view of the settled law that, when an effective and efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute, the petitioner has to approach the said forum seeking redressal of his grievance, it cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for redressal of his grievance.

5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. In case, the petitioner files any Securitization Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, it shall be considered and decided on merits, according to law. There shall be no order as to costs.

1 (2023) 17 SCC 311

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

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Date: 06.11.2025 MDP