Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20349 (AP)

MADDIPOTI SATYAVATHI v. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER

WP/14431/2025 · 2025-06-18

Dhiraj Singh Thakur, R Raghunandan Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010284972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 14431 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-10 [3446] Smt. Maddipoti Satyavathi ...Petitioner Vs. The Authorized Officer, ICICI Home Finance, and Others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner : Sri S Syamsunder Rao Advocate for Respondents : --- CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 19th June, 2025 P C : The petitioner claims that she had borrowed a sum of money from one Tirunagari Seshu. Respondent No.2, it is alleged by the petitioner, fraudulently claims to have a sale deed executed in his favour by the petitioner. Subsequent to the alleged execution of the sale deed, the property belonging to the petitioner is stated to have been mortgaged with ICICI Home Finance – respondent No.1. 2. On account of the default committed by respondent No.2 in paying to respondent No.1 the loan advanced by it to respondent No.2, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, have been initiated by respondent No.1 against private respondents. 2 HCJ & RRR, J WP_14431_2025 3. In the meantime, the petitioner claims she had challenged the sale deed allegedly executed by her in favour of respondent No.2 on the grounds of fraud which is still pending trial. The petitioner also claims to have filed an S.A bearing No.176 of 2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, accompanied with an application (IA.No.1909 of 2025) for grant of interim relief which has since been dismissed by the D.R.T by virtue of order, dated 09.06.2025. 4. The petitioner has challenged the order, dated 09.06.2025 before this Court. In our opinion the remedy of the petitioner lies with the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal by way of an appeal. It shall be open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the D.R.T. 5. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Vjl