City Union Bank Vs the Debt Recovery Tribiunal

CITY UNION BANK, REP.BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, SRI. SRINIVASA PRASAD K.K, S/O.NARSIMHA RAO, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC AUTHORISED OFFICER, CREDIT RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 24-B, GANDHI NAGAR, KUMBAKONAM, TAMILNADU, PIN 612001.

¶11

THE BRANCH MANAGER,, CITY UNION BANK, RAJHMUNDRY, SRI. PINNELLI DATTASAI DURGA PRASAD, S/O.SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED 41 YEARS, OCC BRANCH MANAGER, D.NO. 7-30-9 AND 7- 28, VYGRAM ROAD, T.NAGAR, RAJHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PIN 533101.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBIUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM.530020.

¶15

SRI ALLA APPA RAO EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.ALLA RAVI KISHORE, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO-7-374, RAVULAMMA NAGAR, JAGGAMPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PIN 533435.

¶16

JEENU MANIKYALA RAO, S/O.SRI.J.CHINNA VENKAT RAO, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO. 10-176, JVR COMPLEX,

¶17

2

¶18

JAGGAMPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PIN 533435

¶19

JEENU MAHESH BABU, S/O.SRI.J.CHINNA VENKAT RAO, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO. 10-176, JVR COMPLEX, JAGGAMPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PIN 533435 .

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any Appropriate Writ by declaring the Inaction of the First Respondent in not deciding the S.A.No.l58 of 2024, Filed by the second Respondent, and not deciding the matter even after filing the Written Arguments by the. Bank, continuing the stay of Further Proceedings, granting Numerous adjournments without reason, is contrary to Section 17(5) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act,2002, contrary to the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) Number-21255 of 2025, Dated 07-10-2025 in Indian Overseas Bank Vs M/s.Radhey Infra Solutions Private Limited, Contrary to Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 of Constitution, and against .the principals of natural justice, contrary to Law, and this Honourable Court may be Pleased to Direct the Honourable DRT, Visakhapatnam to hear the matter in S.A.No. 158 of 2024 expeditiously, and to pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶23

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 to Direct the First Respondent to adjudicate the matter in S.A.No. 158 of 2024 expeditiously, as per the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) Number-21255 of 2025, Dated 07-10-2025 in Indian Overseas Bank Vs M/s.Radhey Infra Solutions Private Limited, and to pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶25

1.S SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶31

AND

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 6016/2026

¶34

ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

¶35

Heard Sri S.Satyanarayana Moorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶36

2. The petitioner is the City Union Bank, which is a secured creditor. The 4^th respondent is the principal borrower. When the Bank has initiated measures under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 8the SARFAESI Act9) for recovery of the loan amount, in view of the default committed by the 4^th respondent in repayment of the loan amount, the 4^th respondent-borrower has filed Securitization Application in S.A.No.113 of 2024 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Visakhapatnam for redressal of his grievance. The 2^nd respondent herein is a tenant in respect of the secured asset. He has also filed Securitization Application in S.A.No.158 of 2024 before the DRT, Visakhapatnam challenging the measures initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act. Both the said Securitization Applications filed by the 4^th respondent – borrower and the 2^nd respondent – tenant are clubbed together before the Tribunal.

¶37

3. Earlier, the petitioner-Bank has filed W.P.No.33748 of 2025 seeking direction to expedite disposal of S.A.No.113 of 2024 filed by the 4^th

¶38

4

¶39

respondent- borrower and the same was disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the said Securitization Application expeditiously.

¶40

4. Now the grievance of the writ petitioner is that, as there was no direction to dispose of the Securitization Application filed by the 2^nd respondent – tenant expeditiously, the Tribunal has not taken up the said matter even though both Securitization Applications are clubbed before the Tribunal.

¶41

5. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the DRT, Visakhapatnam to dispose of S.A.No.158 of 2024 which is clubbed with S.A.No.113 of 2024 expeditiously along with S.A.No.113 of 2024, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

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

¶43

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶44

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶45

Date: 03.03.2026 Furnish copy by 09.03.2026 KA

¶46

5

¶47

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