APHC010366202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 18628 OF 2025 Between: 1. M/s. Venkateswara Traders, Rep. by its Managing Partner, G. Aswani Kumar, S/o G. Chandrasekar Reddy, Aged about 36 years, Occ- Business, R/o. 8-2-296/82/44, Plot No. 61, HUDA Heights, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 2. G. Aswani Kumar, S/o G. Chandrasekar Reddy, Aged about 36 Occ- Business, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 3. A. Vineeth Kumar, S/o Venkata Siva Reddy, Aged about 26 years,Occ- Business, R/o. H.No. 9-136 B, Kothapalem Village, Talluru Mandal, Prakasam District. years. R/o. 8-2-296/82/44, Plot No. 61, HUDA Heights, 4. Kunam Eswaramma, W/o. Late Venkata Siva Reddy, Aged about 61 years,Occ- Business, R/o. 2-80, Baddipudi village, Prakasam District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. Indian Bank, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Acharya Ranga Nagar Near Nalanda School, SBI Officers Colony, Near Benz Circle, Mogalrajapuram Branch, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. The Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Acharya Ranga Nagar, Near Nalanda Mogalrajapuram School, SBI Officers Colony, Near Benz Circle Branch, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The Debts Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Presiding Officer/Authorized Signatory (R3 is a formal party to this WP) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Interim Orders passed in lA No. 1606 of 2025 in SA No.477 of 2023, Dt: 02.07.2025 on the file of the Court of the 3 Respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary and irrational as against the provision of SARFAESI Act and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent Tribunal to reconsider the Petitioners Claim and pass appropriate order in the said lA No. 1606 of 2025 in SA No.477 of 2023. rd lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Interim Orders passed in lA No. 1606 of 2025 in SA No.477 of 2023, Dt: 02.07.2025 on the file of the Court of the 3'^'^ Respondent herein and not to proceed with the Auction conducted within 30 days of Auction Notice pending disposal of the main Writ Petition in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Interim Direction, directing the Respondents No.1 & 2 not to proceed further with regard to the notice of sale immovable properties Dt: 29.03.2025 in respect of the Property No.1 (Vacant Land in an extent of Ac. 5227.20 Sq.Yds Of 4370.60 Sq.Meters in RS No.45/3 nearby Door No. 104-3/50, Hakompeta, backside of D-Mart Shopping Mali near Royal Town Apartment, Rajahmundry Rural Kadiyam SRO, East Godavari Dist. boundaries East: Site belonging to S. Chandra Rao, South: site belonging to G. Veerraju, West: 33 Wide Road a part and drainage. North: Site Belonging to G. Veerraju and as well as Property No.2 Ground Floor Building in an extent of 297 Sq.Yds or 248.32 Sq. Mts, TS N0.159P Ward No. 14 present D.No.28-1-45/1 Old Assessment No.26714 New Assessment No. 1060044926 on Main Road, in Western Row, Kakinada Town Kakinada Municipal Corporation, Kakinada Urban Mandal, Kakinada SRO East Godavari District, East: 80-00' Wide BT Main Road, South: Commercial Shop of Kakinada Cycle Stores Vacant land of Mr. Mutha Manikyam, North: Commercial Shop of M/s. Kotaiah Kaja Sweet Shop pending disposal of the main Writ Petition in the interest of justice. West: Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VENKAT PRASAD UKKALAM Counsel for the Respondents: — The Court made the following order: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Bench Sr.No:- L.M.1 [3483] APHC010366202025 Writ Petition No: 18628 of 2025 M/s. Venkateswara Traders and others ...Petitioners Vs. Indian Bank and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. Venkat Prasad Ukkalam Advocate for Respondents; CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 21"* July, 2025. PC : The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.1606 of 2025 in S.A.No.477 of 2023 dated 02.07.2025. 2. We are of the opinion that there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioners before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. 3. Considering the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P.,* whereby the Apex Court had reiterated the principle that when an alternate remedy was available to a person, the resort to extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not permitted unless V2021)6SCC 771 2 HCJ & RCJ WP_1862S_2025 the Court was satisfied that the case of the petitioner fell within any of the exceptions which had been crystallized by the Apex Court as under: “27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. ” 4. Reference in this regard can also be made to the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon^ wherein the Apex Court held as under: “55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” 5. In view of the fact that an efficacious alternate remedy is available to the petitioners and that the petitioners have been unable to bring the present case within the exceptions carved out in Radha Krishan Industries’s case, we deem it appropriate that the petitioners avail the alternate remedy. We do not find any reason to interfere at this stage, by invoking writ extraordinary jurisdiction. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum. ^ <2010) 6 see 110: 2010 INSC 428 3 HCJ & RCJ WP 18628_2025 fe 6. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this petition, shall stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, Acharya Ranga Nagar Nalanda School, , Near SBI Officers Colony Mogalrajapuram Branch, Vijayawada, Krishna District Near Benz Circle, 2. The Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Acharya Ranga Nagar, Near Nalanda School, SBI Officers Colony, Near Benz Circle, Branch, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The Presiding Officer/Authorized Signatory, Debts Recovery Tribunal Visakhapatnam. 4. One CC to Sri Venkat Prasad Ukkalam, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Mogalrajapuram at Ssb (gsg) HIGH COURT DATED:21/07/2025 ORDER WP No.18628 OF 2025 if 2 3 JUL 2025 o> <3\ '^y lynrentSeg 'sms& DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS