APHC010100412026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.6830 of 2026 Between: 1. MR.HARIDASU SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE H. NAGABHUSHANAM, R/O D.NO. RAMA SITHA COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR, 0PP. EHNIC TOBACCO OFFICER, ARUNDELPET, GUNTUR - 522 202. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, IKF FINANCE LTD, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT D.NO.40-1-144, CORPORATE CENTRE, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520 010. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, IKF FINANCE LTD, SITUATED AT D.NO.40-1-144, CORPORATE CENTRE, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520 010. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SINGARAJU MAHASWETHA VARMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.6830 of 2026 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, whereby the application filed by the writ petitioner in S.A.No.228 of 2023 under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’), challenging the measures initiated by the respondent financial institution under the SARFAESI Act for recovery of the loan amount due and also the order passed by the learned Magistrate appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset, was dismissed. 3. Every order that is passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, including the order passed under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, is an appealable order and an appeal lies against the said order by an aggrieved person to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. But, without preferring the appeal, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In fact, as per the procedure prescribed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, deposit of 50% of the debt amount is a condition precedent for preferring an appeal. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, as an appeal lies against the impugned order, this writ petition is not maintainable. 3 4. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pursue his remedy of appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner is permitted to prefer an appeal within one week from the date of this order. Till he prefers the appeal within the time so stipulated, there shall be a direction to the Advocate Commissioner not to take possession of the secured asset. If the petitioner fails to prefer an appeal within the period of one week and obtain any order from the Appellate Tribunal, the above said direction stands vacated without any further reference to the Court. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY ______________________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 12.03.2026 Note:- Issue CC today. (B/o) IBL 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.6830 of 2026 Dt: 12.03.2026 IBL