Dismissed

Girijala Udaya Lakshmi v. Ugro Capital Ltd.

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Jan 2026WP/34337/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an auction notice under SARFAESI Act. The petitioner, a third party claiming GPA rights, was directed to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petition was disposed of without interfering in the case.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with direction to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal; no order as to costs.

Girijala Udaya Lakshmi Vs Ugro… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3558]

¶2

APHC010666022025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESD A Y, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUA R Y TW O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 34337/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

GIRIJALA UDAYA L AKSHMI, W/O G GURU PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O D. N O.20D-1-4, GANUGULAPETA, ELURU - 534 002

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

UGRO CAPITAL L T D, rep by its Authorized Officer Equinox Business Park, Tower 3, 4th F loor, LBS Road, Kurla (West), Mum b ai -400070

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Petition under Artic l e 226 of the Constitution of India pr a ying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hig h Court may be pleased to issue a writ / order or direction particularly in the nature writ of Mandamus declaring t he Auction Notice Dt.9.12.2025 issued by the Respondent as violativ e of Art., 14 and 300-A of the Con s titution of India besides being in violati o n of SARFEASI Act and the Rules on the subject, directing not to proceed f urther and pass

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circu m stances stated in the affidavit filed in su p port of the petition, the High Court m a y be pleased to direct the Respondent not to conduct Auction Dt:9.12.2025 v ide the Auction Notice Dt:5.11.2025 pen d ing W.P. and pass

¶18

¶19

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.34337 of 2025

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.POTHINA GAGAN KARTHIK

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶23

¶24

¶25

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.34337 of 2025

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

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

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶29

The petitioner is a third party to the loan transaction. She is neither a borrower nor a guarantor. Claiming to be the GPA holder of the principal debtor, she has filed this writ petition to challenge the measures initiated by the respondent-financial institution under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the principal borrower, who has committed default in repayment of the loan amount, for recovery of the loan amount.

¶30

To a pointed question, as to why the petitioner has not approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which is the appropriate forum, constituted under the statute for redressal of the grievances relating to the measures initiated by the Bank and financial institution, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as the petitioner is a third party to the loan transaction that the Debts Recovery Tribunal is not entertaining the application filed by the third parties. In fact, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner has filed any securitization application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and it has returned or rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner is a third party to the loan transaction. In fact, the Section 17 of the Act itself starts with the expression “any person”, which is wide enough to cover all persons other than the principal debtors and guarantors and any aggrieved person can initiate proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

¶31

Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and to entertain the writ petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the measures taken by the financial institution, she has to seek her remedy before the appropriate forum constituted under the Act.

¶32

¶33

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.34337 of 2025

¶34

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal and challenge the measures initiated by the financial institution on the grounds which are urged in this writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

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

¶36

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶37

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶38

Date: 07.01.2026 MDP

Girijala Udaya Lakshmi v. Ugro Capital Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girijala Udaya Lakshmi v. Ugro Capital Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bora Narayanamma Vs Union of India

Sanisetti Naga Keerthi Vs State Bank of India

K. Babu Rao Vs the State of Ap

Mittapalli Kalpana Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bitra Vijay Kumar, Vs Federal Bank

Sri Prabha Life Sciences Vs the Authorized Officer