Doddi Venkata Lakshmi Vs Canara Bank

SRI MAMIDI MA N IKYAM, W/O LATE VENKATA R AMANA.AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/O D.NO.18-4.MAIN ROAD, PAYAKARAOPET A .PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT.

¶16

SRI MAMIDI VENKATESWARAO, S / O LATE VENKATARAMAN A .AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O D.NO.18-4.MAIN ROAD, P A YAKARAOPETA.PAYAKARAOPET A MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE DIS T RICT.

¶17

SRI MAMIDI RAJA VARAHALU, S/O LATE VENKATAR A MANA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O D.NO.18-4.MAIN ROAD, PAYAKARAOPET A .PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE

¶18

2

¶19

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.31931 of 2025

¶20

DISTRICT.

¶21

M/S SOUTH CENTRAL SHOPPING MALI, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER- M.VENKATESWARARAO, DOOR N0.18-4/G1, G2. GROUND FLOOR. MAIN ROAD, PAYAKARAOPETA, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Declaring the sale notice Dt 14/10/2025 issued by the 1st respondent u/s 13(4) of the Securitisation of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 read with Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement)Rules 2002. ,is illegal, arbitrary against the principles of Natural Justice, Violative of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to conduct the sale of the properties mentioned in the sale notice by excluding the share of the petitioner. and pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Declaring the sale notice Dt; 14/10/2025 issued by the 1st respondent u/s 13(4) of the Securitisation of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 read with Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement)Rules 2002. ,is illegal, arbitrary against the principles of Natural Justice, Violative of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to conduct the sale of the properties mentioned in the sale notice by excluding the share of the petitioner. and pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.S APPADHARA REDDY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

¶30

3

¶31

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.31931 of 2025

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

¶34

This writ for Mandamus is filed seeking declaration that the sale notice dated 14.10.2025 issued by respondent No.1 under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’), is illegal and arbitrary and consequently sought direction to respondent No.1 to conduct sale of the properties mentioned in the sale notice by excluding the share of the petitioner.

¶35

Heard Mr. S.Appadhara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.B.L.Murthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2-Bank.

¶36

Since, respondent Nos.3 to 6 are only guarantors relating to the loan availed by the principal borrowers and as we are disposing of this Writ Petition with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, after obtaining decree, if any, in her favour, from the Civil Court, notice to respondent Nos.3 to 6 is dispensed with.

¶37

The petitioner is the daughter of a person by name Mamidi Venkataramana. He is the principal borrower who availed loan from respondent No.1-Bank and respondent Nos.3 to 5 stood as guarantors and offered their property as security for re-payment of the loan amount. Thereafter, the principal borrower died on 17.08.2020, leaving behind his wife and two sons and the petitioner herein, who is his married daughter as surviving legal heirs to him. As the borrower committed default in re-payment of the loan, the Bank has initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner, who is the daughter of the borrower, has filed a suit in O.S.No.136 of 2025 on the file of Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, claiming a share in the properties that are mortgaged by the

¶38

4

¶39

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.31931 of 2025

¶40

principal borrower and the respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are his sons. She has also pleaded that a will was executed by her father in her favour bequeathing a part of the secured asset in her favour. The rights claimed by the petitioner in the said secured asset are yet to be established in the said suit.

¶41

Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that if the properties, which are secured assets, are sold in the auction proposed to be held by the Bank even without her share is determined in the property and her rights are adjudicated in the suit that was filed by her that she will be deprived of her share in the said property and irreparable loss would be caused to her. Therefore, she filed the present writ petition, seeking the aforesaid relief to declare the sale notice issued by respondent No.1 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act as illegal and arbitrary.

¶42

We have absolutely no hesitation to hold that the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition to seek declaration of the sale notice as illegal, issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. If at all she is aggrieved by the said sale notice issued by respondent No.1 on the ground that she got an undivided share in the secured asset and that her claim for the same is pending adjudication in the suit filed in the Civil Court, she can as well approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act deals with application to be filed against the measures to recover the secured assets. The Section itself starts with “any person” including borrower aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-Section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer. The petitioner clearly comes within purview of “any person” and she can make an application within 45 days from the date on which the measures had been taken. Therefore, the Right to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, questioning the measures

¶43

5

¶44

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.31931 of 2025

¶45

taken by the secured creditor, is not confined only to the principal borrower or the guarantor. A clear right is also conferred on every person other than borrower and the guarantor also. Therefore, even though the petitioner is not a borrower or the guarantor, she clearly comes within the expression “any person” used in Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and she can as well challenge the said notice before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. But, without exhausting the efficacious remedy available to her under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, she has filed this writ petition challenging the said sale notice. Even in the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Central Bank of India and another v. Prabha Jain and others¹ , at para No.19, it is held as follows:

¶46

The expression “any person” used in Section 17 is of wide import and takes within its fold not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by action taken under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act.

¶47

Then, the Apex Court has also referred to earlier judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others² , wherein, it is held as follows:

¶48

Therefore, the expression “any person” referred to in Section 17 would take in the plaintiffs in the suit as well . Therefore, irrespective of the question whether the civil suit is maintainable or not, under the Securitization Act itself, a remedy is provided to such persons so that they can invoke provisions of Section 17 of the Securitization Act, in case the Bank (secured creditor) adopt any measure including the sale of the secured assets, on which the plaintiffs claim interest.

¶49

Therefore, the legal position is very clear that even a plaintiff in a suit who claimed a share or right in the property, which is a secured asset, as well

¶50

1 (2025) 4 SCC 38

¶51

2 (2010) 8 SCC 110

¶52

6

¶53

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.31931 of 2025

¶54

can approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, as he/she being the plaintiff also comes within the expression “any person” used in Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. In view of the said clear law, this Writ Petition filed questioning the legal validity of the sale notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act as a measure initiated by secured creditor, which is the Bank, is clearly unsustainable under law and it is not maintainable.

¶55

Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere and to entertain the present writ petition in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶56

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to establish her right or share in the property in question in civil suit that is filed and the sale that may take place, pursuant to the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act issued by the Bank, will be subject to result of the civil suit and if at all the petitioner succeeds in the civil suit and gets a share in the property, she can as well approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, for restoration of possession of property as well. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶58

JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶59

JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶60

Date: 19.11.2025 MDP

Doddi Venkata Lakshmi v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doddi Venkata Lakshmi v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nadendla Mabunni Vs the State of Ap

M/s Vennala Poultries, Vs The Union of India

Kampa Sagaramma Vs The Station House Officer

Doosari Grasamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Harsha Innovative Educational Society, Vs The Union of India

Shulam Eswaraiah Vs Hinduja Housing Finance Ltd.