APHC010197422025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 10013 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-9 [3483] M/s Aditya Steel Rolling Pvt. Ltd, ...Petitioner Vs. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited and another ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S V S S Sivaram for CKR Associates Advocate for Respondents : --- CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 21st April 2025 P C : The grievance of the petitioner is that against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’] by the respondent No.1, the petitioner had since preferred an SA bearing No.170 of 2024 which was also accompanied by an interim application. 2. It is stated that the SA along with the IA was posted for consideration on 17.04.2025. 2 HCJ & RC,J WP_10013_2025 3. When an application was filed for preponing the date of hearing of the said SA on account of the fact that the Advocate Commissioner had already been appointed in terms of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the matter was taken up on 02.04.2025 when the DRT posted the matter on 01.05.2025 by recording as if the counsel for the petitioner herein and applicant before the DRT had sought time for hearing and disposal of IA.No.882 of 2020 (sic 2024). 4. It is stated that no such request was ever made and that it was wrongly recorded in the said order that an adjournment had been sought for addressing arguments in the interim application. 5. It can be seen from the record that the said order passed by the Tribunal is dated 02.04.2025 and assuming that the order was not correctly recorded by the Presiding Officer of the DRT, no steps at all were taken by the petitioner herein to seek rectification of the said order or contest that what was recorded in the order, dated 02.04.2025, was not correctly recorded. 6. We have no reasons to disbelieve what was recorded by the DRT in its order dated 02.04.2025. While it may be true that an advocate commissioner has since been appointed which might lead to dispossession of the petitioner from the premises in question which is the secured asset with respondent No.1, yet, the remedy of the petitioner would now lie before the DRT who may similarly seek preponement of the matter which has now been 3 HCJ & RC,J WP_10013_2025 fixed to be taken up on 01.05.2025 and also seek recall of the order dated 02.04.2025. We do not find this a good case for interfering at present. 7. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J Vjl