APHC010054482014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 35122 of 2014 Bench Sr.No:-5 [3483] Vadla Narasimhulu ...Petitioner Vs. Corporation Bank and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for petitioner : Sri Butta Vijaya Bhasker Advocate for respondents : Smt V. Dyumani, Ms. Sheikh Neha Hassan. CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 30th June 2025 P C : The petitioner herein is an auction purchaser in regard to a property which was sold in an auction on account of default of the principal borrower to repay a loan which was advanced by the Corporation Bank. 2. It appears that before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (D.R.T.), Securitization Application No.256 of 2010 was filed by the borrower - M/s.Venkateshwara Textiles who succeeded in the said S.A. The D.R.T. held that invoking the provisions under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was impermissible in view of Section 31(j) of the SARFAESI Act as the claim amount was below 20% of the principal amount and interest thereon. It 2 was on that account that the D.R.T. held the principal borrower entitled for restoration of the schedule property even when it was sold to the petitioner herein in a public auction. The S.A. was accordingly allowed and the auction conducted on 31.12.2010 was set aside. Against the order, as a necessary consequence, the petitioner herein would be liable to restore the possession to the principal borrower. Challenging the order passed by the D.R.T., the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the principal borrower i.e., respondent No.2 had failed to comply with an interim order passed by the D.R.T. in I.A.No.1064 of 2010 in S.A.No.256 of 2010 whereby, the principal borrower was directed to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- as an interim measure and since the said order was not complied with, the S.A. could not have been allowed holding the auction to be bad in law. 4. We do not find any substance whatsoever in the said argument inasmuch as the failure to comply with an interim order passed in the S.A. would not preclude the D.R.T to finally dispose of the S.A. on merits which it did in the present case. Notwithstanding the fact that there was a remedy by way of an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (D.R.A.T.), as has been availed by the Bank, the petitioner, instead, chose to file the present petition. 3 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, in our opinion, the present writ petition is certainly not maintainable inasmuch as it does not fall within any of the exceptions as otherwise been laid down in the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P.,1 and United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon2. 6. Be that as it may, we dismiss this Writ Petition leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy if so advised. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, including I.A.No.1 of 2024 shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J AMD 1 (2021) 6 SCC 771 2 [(2010)8 SCC 110 : 2010 INSC 428] 4 54 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 35122 of 2014 Dt:30.06.2025 AMD