Haridasu Srinivasa Rao Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The writ petition challenged an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Visakhapatnam, which had dismissed the petitioner’s application filed under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The application had questioned the recovery measures initiated by the financial institution and the Magistrate’s order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset.
The High Court held that every order passed by the DRT under the SARFAESI Act is appealable under Section 18 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). Since the petitioner directly invoked the writ jurisdiction without availing the statutory appellate remedy, the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court also noted that filing an appeal requires a pre-deposit of 50% of the debt amount.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the DRAT within one week. The Court directed that no possession be taken by the Advocate Commissioner during this period. If no appeal is filed within the stipulated time, the interim protection would stand vacated automatically.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
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.
