Sigilipelli Venkataramana Vs the Union of India

¶1

[3558]

¶2

APHC010714602025

¶3

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

¶4

TUESD A Y, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TW O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 89/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

SIGILIPELLI VENK A TARAMANA, S/O LATE BODDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC. R ETD, DOCTOR, DHARMAPURI, V I ZIANAGARAM TOWN AND DIST R ICT.

¶10

SIGILIPELLI PAD M A GOWRI, W/O VENKATARAM A NA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEAR S , DHARMAPURI, VIZIANAGARA M TOWN AND DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS FINANCE D EPARTMENT NORTH BLOCK, N E W DELHI

¶14

THE DEBT REC O VERY TRIBUNAL DRT, DOOR NO 31-31-21, NARAYAN BHAV A N, SAI BABA STREET, DAB A GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530020

¶15

M/S AXIS FINANC E LIMITED, REP, BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AXIS HOUSE, GR O UND FLOOR, PANDURANGA BU D HKAR MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 an appr o priate writ, order or direction more p a rticularly one in

¶18

2

¶19

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.89 of 2026

¶20

the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No 2 to extend the time for depositing the amount pursuant to the order passed in SA No.705/2025 dt 25.11.2025 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶22

1.A.SRINIVASA RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

¶25

3

¶26

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.89 of 2026

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

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

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-Union of India.

¶30

Since we are disposing of this writ petition with a direction to the petitioners to approach the 2^nd respondent-Debts Recovery Tribunal and seek redressal of their grievance regarding extension of time to deposit the amount, as ordered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal while granting stay, notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 is dispensed with.

¶31

The petitioners are the principal borrowers, who committed default in repayment of the loan amount. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent-financial institution has initiated measures under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’), to take possession of the secured asset and to sell the same in the public auction for realization of the loan amount.

¶32

Challenging the said measures initiated by the financial institution, the petitioners have already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of filing securitization application No.705 of 2025 and also filed an interlocutory application, seeking stay of further proceedings. The Debts Recovery Tribunal has granted stay on condition of depositing Rs.2,20,00,000/-. But, the petitioners have failed to deposit the said sum of Rs.2,20,00,000/- and they have deposited only Rs.20,00,000/-. Therefore, they did not fulfill the condition imposed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal while granting stay of further proceedings.

¶33

Alleging that the presiding officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal is on training till 05.01.2026, they have approached this Court by way of filing the writ petition, seeking extension of time. When the order of stay was granted by the Tribunal and when it has imposed a condition for granting stay, a decision

¶34

4

¶35

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.89 of 2026

¶36

whether to extend time or not is to be taken by the Tribunal itself. So, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and to entertain this writ petition. It is stated that the stay petition stood posted to 20.01.2026. So, the petitioners can approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal on that day and make a request and it is for the Tribunal to decide whether to grant time or not and it is entirely within the discretion of the Tribunal. It is also brought to our notice that the presiding officer of the Tribunal resumed duty today after completion of the training.

¶37

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal on or before 20.01.2026 and seek redressal of their grievance. Till 20.01.2026, the respondents are directed not to take further steps to take possession of the property till their request, whether to extend time or not is decided by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

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

¶39

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶40

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶41

Date: 06.01.2026 MDP

Sigilipelli Venkataramana v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sigilipelli Venkataramana 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

Smt Vindhya Dronamraju, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation

Mahys Pharmaceuticals Vs the Union of India

Modem Aruna @ Vallam Aruna Vs Reserve Bank of India

Yanga Sree Usirkayala Vs the State of Ap

Prasanth Pedapati Vs the Union of India

Subhan Krafts Paper (P) Ltd. Vs the Authorized Officer