Veeraraju Gurram Vs the Iifl Home Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Veeraraju Gurram Vs the Iifl Home Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No mandamus or interim suspension granted; writ petition disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking redressal of his grievance; no order as to costs; as a sequel, pending interlocutory applications (including IA No. 1 of 2026) stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner-borrower, who has an efficacious remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (constituted under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, with a special redressal mechanism) to challenge the Section 14 order, could properly invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court without first approaching the Tribunal. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner has an efficacious remedy of challenging the Section 14 SARFAESI order, if aggrieved on valid legal grounds, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, which has a special mechanism for redressal of such grievances.

Ratio / Principle

Without approaching the Tribunal, the petitioner had invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court; accordingly the writ petition was not entertained on merits and was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking redressal of his grievance, with no order as to costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P. No. 6135 of 2026, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), decided 03.03.2026 — bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy J (author) and Tuhin Kumar Gedela J. Borrower Veeraraju Gurram, under Article 226, challenged the order dated 16.01.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.624 of 2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram — an order under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 to take possession of the secured asset, with consequential warrants for physical possession flowing from first respondent IIFL Home Finance Limited's possession notice dated 09.10.2025 — as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice (IA No. 1 of 2026 under Section 151 CPC sought interim suspension). Held (per Roy J): the borrower has an efficacious remedy to challenge such an order before the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, which has a special mechanism for redressal of such grievances; not having approached the Tribunal, resort to the High Court's writ jurisdiction was improper. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications closed. The merits of the Section 14 order and warrants were not examined.

[3558]

APHC010113362026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUES D AY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TW O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

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

WRIT PETITION NO: 6135/2026

Between:

VEERARAJU GURRAM, S/O. NAGARAJU GURRAM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC A GRICULTURE, R/O.D.NO.1-127, M ANGULAVARI VEEDHI, YELESWARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PRESENTLY KAKINADA DISTRI C T - 533429.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE IIFL HOME F INANCE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SRI D. BALAJI SINGH NAIK, S/O. DMS. NAIK, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. REGIONAL LEGAL MANAGER, I N DIA INFOLINE HOUSING FINAN C E LTD., D.NO.6-6-10, GS RAO C O MPLEX, OPP. SBH, T. NAGAR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EA S T GODAVARI DISTRICT - 533101.

THE UNION OF INDIA, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, RO O M NO. 129-A, NORTH BLOCK, N E W DELHI REP. BY ITS SECRETA R Y - 110001.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 o r direction or order, more particularly o ne in the nature of Writ of Mandamus c h allenging Order dated 16.01.2026 i n Crl.MP.624 of 2025 on the file of the C hief Judicial Magistrate Court, East G odavari District at Rajamahendravaram a nd consequential warrants issued to secure physical

2

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.6135 of 2026

possession of scheduled property in the notice Under Section 14 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security, Interest Act 2002 obtained by the respondent Financial Institution in pursuant of possession notice dated 09.10.2025 issued by the 1st respondent herein under Securitization and Reconstruction of Finance Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 suspend the Order dated 16.01.2026 in Crl.MP.624 of 2025 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram and consequential warrants issued to secure physical possession of scheduled property in the notice Under Section 14 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security, Interest Act 2002 obtained by the respondent institution, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.M K RAJ KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

3

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.6135 of 2026

The Court made the following:

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

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Challenging the order dated 16.01.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.624 of 2025 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari District, whereby an order under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, was passed to take possession of the secured asset, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the borrower.

The petitioner has got an efficacious remedy of challenging the said order, if at all he is aggrieved by any valid legal ground, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which is constituted under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, with special mechanism for redressal of such grievances. But, without approaching the Tribunal, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court.

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, seeking redressal of his grievance. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Date: 03.03.2026 MDP