Shaik Imamsa Vs M/S Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

SHAIK RAMEEJA, W/O SHAIK IMAMSA, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.9- 73/1, AMARAVATI VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 522020

¶10

SHAIK MABU SUBHANI, S/O SHAIK IMAMSA, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.9-73/1, AMARAVATI VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 522020

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

M/S HINDUJA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO. 27 A, DEVELOPED INDUSTRIAL AREA, GUINDY, CHENNAI-600032

¶14

M/S HINDUJA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE AT 54-20-1/A, 3^RD FLOOR, OPPOSITE STATE BANK OF INDIA, GURUNANAK COLONY, MAIN ROAD, VIJAYAWADA520008.

¶15

2

¶16

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.36874 of 2025

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶19

1.K SATYA SAI KUMAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

3

¶24

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.36874 of 2025

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶26

AND

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.36874 of 2025

¶29

O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶31

2. Challenging the measures initiated by the respondents under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 8the SARFAESI Act9) for realization of the loan amount due from the petitioners, who are the principal borrower and co-borrowers, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

¶32

3. To a pointed question as to why the petitioners approached this Court without approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal for redressal of their grievance, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that as per the amendment effected to sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short, 8the Act of 19939), in the year 2018 with effect from 06.09.2018, the Act has no application where the amount of debt due to any bank or financial institution is less than Rs.20.00 lakhs. But, as can be seen from the material available on record and, particularly, the notice issued to the petitioners by the respondent - financial institution under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the amount of debt due to the financial institution by the petitioners is Rs.21,18,593/-. Therefore, obviously, the debt due is more than Rs.20.00 lakhs and does not fall within the ambit of Section 1(4) of the Act of 1993. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Debts Recovery Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the Securitisation Application relating to the said debt.

¶33

4

¶34

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.36874 of 2025

¶35

4. As the petitioners have got an efficacious remedy by way of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which is specifically constituted for adjudication of the disputes relating to the measures initiated by the banks and financial institutions for recovery of the loan amounts, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter and to entertain the writ petition. The Supreme Court has time and again deprecated the practice of entertaining the writ petitions when a special forum is constituted with separate mechanism to deal with such disputes.

¶36

5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal concerned and avail their remedy of filing a Securitisation Application before it within two weeks from the date of this order. Till such time, there shall be stay of further proceedings pursuant to the vacate notice dated 29.11.2025 issued in Crl.M.P.No.1085 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge-cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. If the petitioners fail to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal within two weeks from the date of this order as directed supra, the order of stay stands vacated without any further reference to the Court.

¶37

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶39

______________________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶40

Date: 07.01.2026 IBL

¶41

5

¶42

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.36874 of 2025