IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 10007 OF 2025 Between; Smt. Immadi Lakshmi, W/o. Late I. Anjaneyulu, Aged about 68 Dependant, R/o. D.No. 3-178, Phiryadi Nainavaram Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, N.T.R. District. years, ...PETITIONER AND 1. Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Rep by its Registrar, O/o D No 3313121 Narayana Bhavanam, Saibaba Street, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam 2. State Bank of India, Gudivada Branch, Represented by the Authorized Officer Krishna District -521301. 3. Sri Pasupuleti Raj Kumar, S/o. P. Appa Rao, D. No. 2-109, Koneru Veedhi, Sanivarapupeta, Eluru, Eluru District. 4. Sri Konathala Hari Narayana, S/o. K. Srinivasu, D. No. 5-90, Pulugurtha Village, Anaparthi Mandal East Godavari District. . 5. Sri Konathala Srinivasu, S/o. K. Satyanarayana Murthy, D. No. 5-90, Pulugurtha Village, Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly nature of A ) WRIT OF Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order / may one in the dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 1 in Diary No. 68 of 2025 and to consequently quash the same B ) And directing the Respondent No.1 to admit, register, and proceed with the Securitisation Application filed by the Petitioner on its own merits by framing necessary issues and affording full opportunity for trial and adjudication in accordance with law. 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 Possession Notice dated 13.12.2024 and to direct Respondent No. 2 to not take any further coercive steps pursuant to said Possession Notice dated 13.12.2024 including dispossession Petitioner from residential house admeasuring 549 square yards, situated at R.S. No. 67, D. No. 3-178, Phiryadi Nainavaram Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, N.T.R. District ( Subject Property ) and public auction of the Subject Property, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. of the Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. JYOTHI RATNA ANUMOLU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5; Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI S. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, SC FOR SBI The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010195342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) QMS [3483] WRIT PETITION NO: 10007/2025 Between: Smt. Immadi Lakshmi, ...PETITIONER AND Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) UYOTHi RATNAANUMOLU CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 22.04.2025 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Through this Writ Petition the petitioner challenges the orders dated 24.03.2025 passed by respondent no. 1-Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in Diary No.68 of 2025, whereby and whereunder the Securitization Application (Unnumbered) of 2025 filed by the petitioner under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'SARFAESI ActO dismissed as not maintainable at admission stage even without numbering the same. was 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that, she is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property and to meet her personal needs she y^'CJei^RCJ .WtP.M). 10007 of2025 2 borrowed Rs.20,00,000/- from respondent no.3 on the condition that she shall 1 execute mortgage deed in favour of respondent no.3 and accordingly a deed was obtained from her. Subsequently, the petitioner discharged the debt due to respondent no.3 in the year 2024 itself and the petitioner has been continuing in undisturbed possession of the property. While so, 13.12.2024, the respondent no.2 bank affixed possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on a wall of the subject property and her enquiries revealed that under the guise of mortgage deed, the respondent no.3 obtained Deed of possession Sale agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney incorporating false averments therein that she was paid full consideration of Rs.48,00,0000/-. That thereafter, respondent no.3 sold the property to respondent nos.4 and 5 under registered sale deed, who in their turn mortgaged the said property to respondent no.2 bank by depositing title deed for due discharge of the loan availed by them to the tune of Rs. 1,07,45,000/- and consequent to their failure to discharge, the bank initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act. on It is the further case of the petitioner that immediately she lodged a police complaint against respondent nos.3 to 5 and the concerned bank I officials and also filed suit vide 0.s'.No.38 of 2025 on the file of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada for cancellation of Deed of r f possession sale agreement-cum-power of attorney ” to grant temporary injunction. That the petitioner Application which was applicant is not an aggrieved party as per Assailing the said dismissal order, this writ petition has been filed. M^.(p.9fo.l0007 of2025 along with an application also filed Securitization Act before respondent no.l, under Section 17(1) of SARFAESI numbering or admitting, stating that the dismissed, without Sec. 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. iearned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Heard Ms. Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, counsel, while reiterating the referred to in 4. ^.Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, learned affidavit would contend that 'any person contents of the writ section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act is since she is claiming right and title over the is wide enough to include the petitioner, property and she is aggrieved by against her property under , sub- . Therefore, the impugned order the action of the bank in taking measures section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act Tribunal that the applicant is not without numbering the aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow direction to respondent no.l-Debts Recovery Tribunal, passed by respondent no.l-Debts Recovery is unsustainable that too even an aggrieved party Securitisation Application is liable to be set the writ petition with a Visakhapatnam, to accordance with law. and decide it on merits in number the application ^CJel^RCJ .W(P.!N'o. 10007 of2025 4 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. As per Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, any person aggrieved by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17, may prefer an appeal to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. 7. It is fairly settled that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. However, the rule requiring exhaustion of alternative remedies before resorting to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution is not absolute. There are exceptions where a writ petition can still be entertained, even if an alternative remedy exists. These exceptions include cases where a writ seeks enforcement of fundamental rights, where there is a violation of principles of natural justice, where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction,, or where the v/res (constitutionality) of a statute is challenged. 8. Sub-Section (4) of Section 13 and Sub-section (1) of Section 17 6f the SARFAESI Act are germane and they read as follows: "13. Enforcement of security interest—{!) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor ^CJ ‘RCJ W.iPMo. 10007 of2025 5 be enforced, without the intervention of court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) XXXX (3)XXXXX (4) In case the borrower fails to' discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub-section (2), the secured creditor may take recourse to one or of the following measures to recover his secured debt, namely:— (a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset; (b) take over the management of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset: Provided that the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale shall be exercised only where the substantial part of the business of the borrower is held as security for the debt: Provided further that where the management of whole of the business or part of the business is severable, the secured creditor shall take over the management of such business of the borrower which is relatable to the security for the debt; (c) appoint any person (hereafter referred to as the manager), to manage the secured assets the possession of which has been taken over by the secured creditor; (d) require at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt. 17. 17. Application against measures to recover secured debts—(1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed, to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty five days from the date on which such measure had been taken" may more ^CJ ez: <20 (BMo. 10007 of2025 m 6 9. According to the above, any person aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in Sub Section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer such as taking possession of the secured assets of the borrower, taking over the management of the business of the borrower etc., may make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal for redressal of grievance. 10. In the instance case, the petitioner is claiming that since the document was obtained from her by respondent no.3 by fraud and misrepresentation, the consequential sale deed dated 16.08.2023 executed by respondent no.3 in favour of respondent nos.4 and 5 would also become void and so also the mortgage created by respondent nos. 4 and 5 in favour of the bank and as such respondent no.2 bank cannot initiate SARFAESI proceedings based on creation of such void document. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the vendor's vendor of the borrowers that mortgaged the I property to the bank by way of deposit of title deeds. Therefore, the petitioner comes within the purview of 'any person aggrieved' referred to in sub section (1) of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, entitled to file Securitisation Application against the measures taken by respondent no.2 bank under sub Section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. 'W.(P.9^o. 10007 of2025 1 misconstrued the Tribunal, Visakhapatnam SARFAESI Act that the petitioner does 11. The Debt Recovery and ambit of section 17(1) of the within the purview of the Application filed by the petitioner without numbering it. Therefore, as very much patent, this writ petition filed bypassing maintainable and the order impugned is Tribunal shall number the petition width word 'aggrieved party' in dismissing the at admission stage even misinterpretation of provision of law is alternate remedy is liable to be set aside. The Debt and dispose it of in accordance not come Securitisation Recovery with law. is allowed. There shall be no order as 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ^GISTRAR ^ECTI^ OFFICER ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// To, Tribunal, Visakhapatnam O/o D No Saibaba Street, Dabagardens, X 1. The Registrar, Debts Recovery 3313121 Narayana Bhavanam, Visakhapatnam Authorized Officer, State Bank of India Gudivada Branch, Krishna 2. The District- 521301. r^oi in 3. One CC to M/s. Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, Advocate [OP ] Sri S. Satyanarayana Murthy, SC for SBl[OP / 4. OneCCto 5. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:22/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.10007of2025 e 15 MAY 2025 n Currem seciion ^ ^"^PATCH6° ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS