APHC010451272024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 23158 of 2024 Bench Sr.No:-16 [3483] K.Rajendra Reddy, and Others ...Petitioner(s) Vs. The State Of A. P. and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. N Sai Phanindra Kumar Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. Y V Anil Kumar, Central Govt. Counsel CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 7th October 2025 P C : The petitioners before us are the sugarcane producers, who supplied sugarcane to respondent No.7 – Natems Sugar Private Limited for which some dues are outstanding. 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners approached the Cane Commissioner with a view to recover the outstanding dues and the entitlement of the petitioners was determined by the Cane Commissioner. 2 HCJ & RC, J W.P. No: 23158 of 2024 However, no documents are placed on record which would suggest as to what was the precise amount the petitioners were held entitled to receive. While this was so, it appears that certain amounts were also taken as loan from respondent No.8 – STCI Finance Limited, which is an NBFC. Failure on the part of respondent No.7 to pay the loan amount resulted in initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, against respondent No.7. The proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act also are stated to be under challenge before the Debts Recovery Tribunal – II, Hyderabad. It is not denied that the petitioners do not have the first charge in regard to the dues from respondent No.7 and it is only the secured creditor – respondent No.8 that has the first charge as is the position of law stated by a single Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos.7175 and 10430 of 2021. 3. This position is however not denied by learned counsel for the parties. The entire emphasis of learned counsel for the petitioners is that while respondent No.8 - secured creditor may proceed to sell the properties which were the secured assets with them, yet the claims of the petitioners ought to be satisfied from out of the amount which remains after satisfying the claims of respondent No.8. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to Section 13(7) of the SARFAESI Act to bring home the point that 3 HCJ & RC, J W.P. No: 23158 of 2024 the residue of the money received by a secured creditor is to be paid to the person entitled thereto in accordance with his rights and interests. 4. If that be the legal position, then certainly the petitioners can lay a claim in accordance with law and the procedure prescribed. For this, it may be open to the petitioners to take resort to the appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J akn 4 HCJ & RC, J W.P. No: 23158 of 2024 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Writ Petition No: 23158 of 2024 DATE : 07.10.2025 AKN 132