Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Vogireddy Vikram Reddy vs SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED on 1 October 2026
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM**
Present: - Sri Krishna Gopal Dwivedi, Presiding Officer Dated the 1<sup>st</sup> Day of October, 2026
M.A. No.26 of 2025
in
SA No.565 of 2024
**Between:**
Sri. Vogireddy Vikram Reddy, S/o Satyanarayana Reddy, D.No.7-235, Sri Satya Nagar, Anaparthi, East Godavari District-533342.
.....Applicant
**And:**
Shriram Finance, The Authorised Officer, D.No.6-12-5/1, 2<sup>nd</sup> floor, Orugsntivari Street, Innispeta, Opp. Kotipalli Bus Stand, Rajahmundry-533101.
2. Nallamilli Durga Prasad Reddy, S/o Adireddy, D.No.5-12, Karri Vari Street, Koppavaram, Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District-533346.
3. Karri Krishna Reddy, S/o Venkata Krishna Reddy, D.No.7-235, Sri Satya Nagar, Anaparthi, East Godavari District-533342.
.....Respondents
**Present:-**
<table border="0">
<tr>
<td>Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner</td>
<td>- Sri. J. Vijay Mohan Gandhi</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ld. Counsel for the Respondents</td>
<td>- Sri. Koduri Sreenivasa Rao</td>
</tr>
</table>
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.
**ORDER**
In the above MA, the applicant has prayed to condone the delay of 34 days in filing the miscellaneous petition in the interest of justice.
In counter dt.19.06.2025, the respondent bank has prayed to dismiss the MA with costs.
As per MA, the applicant had entrusted the matter to his colleague advocate as the applicant counsel was out of station due to his grandmother's critical illness. The colleague of applicant counsel did not appear and resultantly the matter was dismissed for default.
In counter, the respondent bank has submitted that the dismissal is a consequence of applicant's own negligence. As per counter, this MA is not maintainable under law. The SARFAESI Act, 2002 is a special statute enabling secured creditors to recover their dues. The applicant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
After perusal of the record, I find that on 08.01.2025, no one appeared on behalf of applicant and hence, SA 565/2024 was dismissed for default for non-prosecution of the matter. The applicant has filed the present petition on 13.03.2025.
In the interest of justice and the reasons given by the applicant, I condone the delay of 34 days in filing the miscellaneous petition and accordingly allow MA 26/2025 without costs and direct the Ld. Registrar to register the restoration petition, if otherwise, in order.
Both parties in this case are present, hence, I fix the case for further hearing on 10.11.2026.
[Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day of 1<sup>st</sup> October, 2026]
**PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM**