Gudapati Seshagiri Rao Vs the Union of India

GUDAPATI SESHAGIRI RAO, S/O. BASAVESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 401, D.NO.9-19-35, BEANGE JASPER APARTMENTS, CBM COMPOUND, VISAKHAPATNAM, PIN530001, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY FINANCE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, ROOM NO. 15074, KARTAVYA BHAVAN-1, NEW DELHI - 110001.

¶15

THE UNION BANK OF INDIA ERSTWHILE ANDHRA BANK, MAIN BRANCH, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶16

M/S SATAVAHANA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI GOGINENI SATYANARAYANA, S/O. G.V KRISHNA RAO, SITUATED AT FLAT NO 3, MAYURI HOMES, 1ST LINE, CHANDRAMOULI NAGAR, GUNTUR-522007.

¶17

SRI GOGINENI SATYNARAYANA, S/O. GV KRISHNA RAO, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. SATAVAHANA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SITUATED AT FLAT NO 3, MAYURI HOMES, 1ST LINE, CHANDRAMOULI NAGAR, GUNTUR-522007.

¶18

SMT GOGINENI ANURADHA, W/O. SATYANARAYANA DIRECTOR OF M/S. SATAVAHANA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SITUATED AT

¶19

2

¶20

FLAT NO 3, MAYURI HOMES, 1ST LINE, CHANDRAMOULI NAGAR, GUNTUR-522007.

¶21

SRI KOMMINENI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. KRISHNA RAO, DIRECTOR OF M/S. SATHAVAHANA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DONDAPADU POST, THULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶22

M/S BEANZE TYRES, A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN REPRESENTED BY. PARTNER NARLA SUDHAKAR, S/O. RAMBABU, R/O. NO.L, VUDA UDYOG BHAVAN COMPLEX, SIRIPURAM JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM-3.

¶23

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶24

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction mostly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari to call for records in the order dated 15.07.2025 in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in Regular Appeal Dy No.919 of 2023 (arising out of O.A.196 of 2004 of DRT Visakhapatnam) on the file of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal-Kolkata and to quash the order dated 15.07.2025 in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in Regular Appeal Dy No.919 of 2023 (arising out of O.A.196 of 2004 of DRT Visakhapatnam) on the file of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal-Kolkata and to pass

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶26

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 dispense with the filing of Certified copies of the order dated 15.07.2025 in I.A. No. 3 of 2024 in Regular Appeal Dy. No. 919 of 2023, the order dated 27.08.2025 in Regular Appeal Dy. No. 919 of 2023 of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, and the order dated 24.11.2023 in O.A. No. 196 of 2004 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and to pass

¶27

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶28

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 stay all the further proceedings arising out of the order dated 24.11.2023 in O.A.196 of 2004 on the file of DRT Visakhapatnam including recovery of debt or auction of the mortgaged property by the 2nd respondent bank pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶29

3

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶31

1.MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

¶34

The Court made the following:

¶35

4

¶36

The Court made the following:

¶37

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

¶38

Challenging the order, dated 15.07.2025, passed in Appeal DY.No.919 of 2023 by the learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata, whereby the Interlocutory application filed in I.A.No.03 of 2024 seeking waiver of pre-deposit of the debt as contemplated under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptancy Act, 1993 ( for short ‘the Act’) was dismissed, the instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2-Union Bank of India.

¶40

The Respondent No.2-Union Bank of India has filed O.A.No.196 of 2004 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam for recovery of money due from the petitioner herein. The said O.A was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order of Debt Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata under Section 20 of the Act. Section 21 thereof mandates that a person who preferred appeal shall deposit 50% of the debt as a condition precedent to prefer an appeal. However, the appellate Tribunal by an order in writing can reduce the said sum to 25% of the debt. But, the petitioner has filed an application seeking complete waiver of the pre-deposit under Section 21 of the Act. The said application was dismissed by the impugned order.

¶41

5

¶42

There is absolutely no provision in the Act confirming power on

¶43

the Appellate Tribunal to grant complete waiver of deposit of 50% of the debt to maintain an appeal. At best, power is conferred on the appellate tribunal to reduce 50% of the debt to the 25% of the debt. So, when no power of waiver is conferred on the appellate Tribunal, the very petition filed seeking waiver of the pre-deposit is not maintainable under law. Therefore, we do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the appellate Tribunal warranting interference in this Writ Petition.

¶44

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner intends to claim for reduction of the debt from 50% to 25% as contemplated under Section 21 of the Act, the petitioner can prefer a review application before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata to that effect. It is left open to the discretion of the appellate tribunal whether to reduce the debt due to 25% or not. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

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

¶46

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶47

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶48

Date: 09.03.2026 TM

¶49

6

Gudapati Seshagiri Rao v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gudapati Seshagiri Rao v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Turlapati Peddabbai Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Matta Ashok Vs the Authorized Officer

Romala Srinivasa Rao Vs Asset Recovery Branch

M/s. Reddy Raw Rice Mill Vs the Canara Bank

M/s Leela Amrutha Cottons Vs the Union Bank of India

Sayed Shmin Hussain Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh