Telangana High Court
Sri Srinivasulu Sudula vs The Bank Of Maharashtra on 7 May, 2025
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.13215 OF 2025
ORDER:
(Per the Hon’ble Mrs Justice Surepalli Nanda)
Heard Sri K. Ramachandra, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Mirza Safiulla Baig,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as
under:
“….The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ
or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus, declare the action of the 1st
Respondent issued Possession Notice vide AB59/Possession
Notice/HL/2024-25 dated 05.03.2025 kept pending the
Petitioner’s representation dated 28.01.2025 and not given
Reply as per the Rule 3A (C) of The Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002, as illegal, arbitrary, violation
of Principles of Natural Justice guaranteed under Articles
14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and against the
provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and consequently direct
the Respondents to consider the Representation dated
01.04.2025 and pass such other order or orders as this
Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of
Justice.”
3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner
availed loan from the respondent bank. Due to serious health
issues the petitioner could not repay the loan and the
2
SN,J
W.P.No.13215_2025
petitioner’s account was declared NPA on 29.01.2023. The
original registered documents along with the all original link
documents pertaining to petitioner’s house property bearing flat
no.502 in the Balaji pearl, H.No.4-32-775/2/74 in Sy. No. 320
and 321 situated at Kukatpally, Medchal, Malkajgiri District
purchased by the petitioner in the year 2015 vide regd
Document No.5446 of 2015 dated 29.04.2015 at S.R.O Ranga
Reddy had been kept in custody of the 2nd respondent. The
petitioner vide representation dated 28.01.2025, addressed to
the 2nd respondent requested grant of time of 3 to 4 months
period for clearing the petitioner’s outstanding dues. But
however petitioner received possession notice dated 05.03.2025
from the 1st respondent. The petitioner vide representation
dated 01.04.2025 addressed to the 1st respondent requested for
dropping of possession notice dated 05.03.2025 and for grant of
time of three (3) months to clear the outstanding debts. But
however the said representation, dated 01.04.2025 had not
been considered by the 1st respondent as on date. Aggrieved by
the same petitioner approached the court by filing the present
writ petition.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-
3
SN,J
W.P.No.13215_2025DISCUSSION:-
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the writ petition could be disposed of
directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s
representation dated 28.01.2025 addressed to the 2nd
respondent herein and petitioner’s representation, dated
01.04.2025 addressed to the 1st respondent in accordance to
law within a reasonable period on humanitarian grounds.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
Bank however contends that the remedy of the petitioner lies
before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and no relief can be
granted in the present writ petition.
CONCLUSION:-
6. This Court opines that against the possession Notice
issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent herein under
Section 13(4) and 13(12) of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002, petitioner has a remedy under
the Act as per Section 17 of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
4
SN,J
W.P.No.13215_2025
Security Interest Act, 2002 to approach the Debt Recovery
Tribunal.
7. It is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Division
Bench of Apex Court in its judgment dated 20.04.2021
reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 in M/s. Radhakrishnan
Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, which referred to
Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks (reported
in (1998) 8 SCC 1 and further the said view had been
reiterated by a Full Bench of the Apex Court (3 Judges) in a
judgment reported in (2021) SCC Online SC page 801 in
Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited Vs. State of Bihar and
Others dated 24.09.2021 and in the said judgment it is
observed at para No.28 as under :
28. The principles of law which emerge are that:
(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to
issue writs can be exercised not only for the
enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any
other purpose as well;
(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain
a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the
power of the High Court is where an effective
alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved
person;
(iii) 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
5
SN,J
W.P.No.13215_2025violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the
order or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is
challenged;
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the
High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution in an appropriate case though
ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained
when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided
by law;
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself
prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing
the right or liability, resort must be had to that
particular statutory remedy before invoking the
discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory
remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and
discretion; and
(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of
fact, the High Court may decide to decline
jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High
Court is objectively of the view that the nature of
the controversy requires the exercise of its writ
jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be
interfered with.”
This Court opines that the present case falls under
second limb of Clause (iv) and (v) of the Apex Court
judgment highlighted above
This Court taking into consideration the observations of the Apex
Court (referred to and extracted above) is not inclined to grant the
prayer as sought for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.
6
SN,J
W.P.No.13215_2025
8. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:
a) The facts and circumstances of the case,
b) The submissions made by both the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents,
c) The petitioner’s representation dated 28.01.2025,
addressed to the 1st respondent.
d) The contents of the impugned possession notice, dated
05.03.2025 issued to the petitioner by the 1st
respondent.
e) Section 13(4) and 13(12) and Section 17 of the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
f) The observations of the Apex Court in the judgments
(referred to and extracted above).
i)2021) 6 SCC 771
ii) (1998) 8 SCC 1
iii) (2021) SCC Online SC page 801
Taking into consideration that the subject property
pertains to residential house of the petitioner on
humanitarian grounds this Court directs the respondents not
to initiate any coercive steps against the petitioner in
7
SN,J
W.P.No.13215_2025
pursuance to the possession notice vide AB59/possession
Notice/HL/2024-25, dated 05.03.2025 issued to the
petitioner by the 1st respondent for a period of three (03)
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the present order
to enable the petitioner to pursue the remedies as are
available under law against the impugned possession notice,
dated 05.03.2025 issued to the petitioner by the 1st
respondent.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________
MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
_________________________
JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
07.05.2025
Note: Issue CC by today
b/o
TU