1. Godha Annapurna Godha Annapurna v. 1. The Union of lndia

the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Res,pondent No. 3 not to interfere with the petitioners life and liberty and trying to collect the loan amount in a.threatening manner by engaging anti-social eliments and threating the petitioner and his family with dire consequences for payment loan amounts and threatening the petitioner to vacate the loan schedule premises, perding disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G. ESHWARAIAH Counsel for tlre Respondents No.1 & 2: SRI P. SHASHIDHAR REDDY' S.C. FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Counsel for tl're Respondent No.3: Ms. P.S. SUJATHA The Court made the following: ORDER - . 1.1.1-',-r.-- i .) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A UL ORDER: Sri G. Eshwaraiah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have availed a housing loan (Loan A/c No. HHYD23OOO045573) from respondent No.3 but due to health and financial issues, there was a delay in repayment. He submits that despite having paid the loan amount by the petitioners till February 2025, their account was wrongly classified as Non-Performing Asset on 08.04.2025. He submits that respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 08.04.2025 to the petitioners under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (for short "the SARFAESI Act"), demanding an alleged amount of Rs.71,18,0LL l-, following due process. He submits that respondent No.3 has ln an arbitrary rnanner and without subjected the petitioners to harassment, threats, and illegal attempts to evict them. He further submits that the action of respondent No.3 violates principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 2l of the Constitution of India. . ,,1.:'i: l 2 j-\ 2- IVts. P.s. Sujatha, rearned counser for respondent No.3 filed c<lun1-er affidavit denying alt aregations of coercion or illegal recovery measures. It is stated that the petitioners have admittedly defaulted in repayment, and the loan account ,,vas rightly classified as a Non-performing Asset (NpA) as per RBI guidelir.es. It is stated that proper statutory procedure under the SAFIFAITSI Act was fo[owed, including issuance of notices under section l3(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. It is stated that the' petitioners have arready received the demand notice, repiied under section l3(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, and respond,=nt No.3 has duly responded. It is further stated that the writ petition is not maintainable in vierv of the alternative statuton, remedy available under Section 17 of the sARFAESI Act before th.e Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). 3- up,rn hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the material on record, it is ciear that the dispute essential.ly pertains to proceedings initiated under the SARFAES}I Act. Admittedly, the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy under Section LZ of the SARFAESI Act before th,-' DRT, where alr grievances, including the legarity of the classification of the account as NpA and the action under t I Section 13(2) and 13(4), can be adjudicated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments has held that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked when alternative statutory remedies are available, unless there is a violation of fundamental rights or the authority acts wholly without jurisdiction, which is not the case here. This Court linds no exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with libert5r to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy available to them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), if so advised. Further, respondent No.3 is directed to recover the loan amounts from the petitioners strictly in accordance with the guidelines and instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India, and in conformity with the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Limited v. Prakash Kaurr and ICICI Bank v. Shanti Devi Sharmaz. No costs. '(zooz) 2sccttL '1zooa1 7 scc s32 4 f'-l I\{isceilaneolls applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. To, SD/- L.VIJAYA LAXMI T REGISTRAR ASS /TRUE COPY// ON OFFICER

1. The Secretary t\Iinistry of Finance, Union of lndia, New Delhi. 2. The Chief General ft/anager 6 Sansad Marg, Reserve Bank of lndia, New Delhi 1 10001

3. .JM Financial Home Loans Umiled, -Qorporate identity Number 065999tV1H2016PLC288534 Corporate Office 3'' floor, A-Wing, Suashish lT Park, l3uilding 8. C.T.S No. 68-E. Rajendra Nagar, Off. Dattapada Road. Borivali (E), Mumbai 400 066. Sol: Direct - +91 22 5075 5050 F: +91 022 2854 8523 7 Floor, Cnergy, Appasaheb Marathe Marg. Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400 025.

4. One Crl to SRI G. ESWARAIAH, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI P. SHASHIDHAR REDDY, S.C. for Central Government IoPUCI

6. One CC to Ms. P.S. SUJATHA, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies i t, r! l, I t. :I ! I I I MP TKS l++- , . F- )I HIGH COURT DATED i2210912025 U o.J * 1 s [tl] l[26 .t ORDER WP.No.18382 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I I I ,i i I i I r{P e\J -r