The High Court · 2025

A.To set aside the docket/order dated 1 1 .09.2025 passed b1, he Hon'ble DRT in l.A. No. 2207 of 2C)25 in S.A. No. 229 of 2025, whereby he Trrbunat, white declining to interfere with the auction proceedings initiated )y the Respondent Bank under the Auction Sale Notice dated 12.08.2025 ifixing auction on 15.09.2025). permitted the Respondent Bank to go ahead v" ith the auction but directed not to confirm the sale in favour of the auction purch rser, subject to the Petitioners depositing a sum of 1,10,00,000/- in two instalme rts (55,00,000/- on or before 25.09.2o2!; and 55,00,000/- on or before 0g.'10.2cIi5) ancl further hold that the imposition of such onerous pre-deposit condition is I bitrar1,, unjust, and violative of Section 26D of the SARFAESI Act as well as set ( d princrples of law. B To quash the CJIVI's orders dated 28.04.2025 (Crt M.p No ;6/2025 - Advocate Commrssioner apporntment) and 02.01 .2025 (Crl M.p. No 7 \l2O2l, - police aid orders) and declare the same to be without jurisdiction, insc ar as enforcement against the Petition [ichedule Property is concerned c.To declare that all steps taken by the Respondents under th: sARFAESI Act rn respect of the Petitirtn Schedule Property are non est in la n / void ab initio for want of registration of security interest in the cERSAI porte I as required under Sectron 26D of the SARFAESI Act D.To direct restoration of possession of the petition ScherjL le property to the Petitioners pending disposal of this petition, or in the alter'r. Ltive, ro pass such directions as this l-lon'ble court may deem fit to preservr the rights of the Petitioners E.To award costs of these proceedings in favour of the petitic r r_.rs l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 )' 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 further proceedings in respect of the Petition Schedule Property, including the operation and effect of the conditional docket order dated 1109.2025 passed by the Hon'ble DRT in LA. No.2207 of 2025 in S.A. No. 229 of 2025. insofar as it permits the Respondent Bank to proceed with the auction pursuant to the Sale Notice dated 12.08.2025 (auction fixed on 15.O9.2025) sublect to the Petitioners depositing a sum of I,'10,00,000/- in two instalments; and further direct that no auction be conducted, no sale confirmed, no sale certificate issued, and no third- party rights created in respect of the Petition Schedule Property, pending disposal of this writ petition. |.A.NO:2 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High Court may be pleased to: a) Set aside the obiection of the Copying Section dated 29.09.2025 in C.A. No 2781t2025, b) Direct issuance of certified copies/ true copies of the Section 14 Applications / Affidavits and all connected annexures (Specifically CERSAI REPORT) filed by the Respondent Bank in Crl.M.P. Nos. 66 and 73 of 2025, c) Call for the records of Crl.M.P. No. 66 of 2025 (and related proceedings) from the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court to enable the Petitioner to effectively prosecute the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI MOHAMMAO IMTIYAZ PASHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI N.NAVEEN KUMAR The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BI]ATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVT;T)N KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO .29618 0F 2O2s Nlr.Moh.rmmad irDtiyaz pasha., Iearned colrnsel appearing for the petrLi ners_ llr N Naveeo Kumar, lei .ned counsel appea_ring tor the respondent Ni)_. . ORDER: (I)er Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya) 1 . We, have heard learned counsel af ,l.earing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

2. Thc only objection taken by the peti:i,rners is under section 2.6D of The Securitisation and Rr:,: onstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securil y Interest Act, 2OO2 (for short, ,the 2OO2 Act) which deals ,,r. th the right of enforcement of securities and mandates that s.:cureri creditor shall not be entitlecl to exercise the rights ol rnlbrcement of securrties ur-rder chapter III unless the se )urity interest created irr its favour by the borrower with Central Registry. has b:en registered

3. Learned counsel appearing for the peti,_i rners submits that the entire proceedings initiated by the se:ured creditor ',vas t,,itiated since the secured asset was nc t registered in compliance u.ith section 26D of the 2OO2 Act. 2 '!

4. Learned counsel appearing for the secured creditor however places a document which is a part of the record of the Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction arid Security Interest of India (CERSAI) specificaliy in respect of secured asset. Counsel places the CERSAI Report in detail. The Report mentions the borrower details as well as the transaction history of the secured credit which was in nature of equitable mortgage. Asset ID is also mentioned in the document. Learned counsel explains that the discrepancy of the survey number with regard to 55A/55AA arises out of the second alphabet of Telugu (AA/ e, ) It is also submitted that the secured asset had been registered in compliance with section 26D of the 2OO2 Act with an earlier secured creditor/ Hinduja Finance Limited prior to this.

5. We have also seen the earlier registration which is also part of the records and mentions the survey number as 'ss/AA(ee )'

6. After perusing this document, it is clear that the entire objection taken by the petitioners is without basis since the petitioner's asset is registered with Central Registry under section 26D of the 20O2 Act. In any event, the impugned docket order dated 11.O9.2025 passed by the I)r:bts Flecovery Tribunal-I, Hvderabad ('DRT], gave sufhcien - relief to the petitioners in terms of restraining the Bank fro rr confirming the sale in favour of the Auction Purchaser s rbjecr to the petitioners depositing Rs. 1 10.00 lakhs in two equal instalment:; io the credit of the loan acc runt of the respondent Bank. The petitioners have neither r omplied with the payme nt conditions nor appealed agairts t this order under the provisions of the 2OO2 Act befrrr e the Debts Recovery A.ppellate Tribunal ('DRAT). The pt:t itioners have instead approached the Writ Court to invoke its rxtraordinary jurisdiction n ithout any of the exceptions ar,: ilabie to the petitioners whether in the presence of trre statutory alternative remedy.

7. The infirmities of the writ petition is fu:-r her apparent from an orrler passed by this Court in W.P.No.2 )O75 of 2025 on 25.O8.2025 recording that the petitioners dir not disclose the materizrl l'acts to this Court and had also rot impleaded necessary lrarties to the u,rit petition. The Court accrrrdingly recorded tLLat the u,rit petition is whol1y malo f',.c'e and suffers from suppression of material facts. It is also l.t to mention 4 that the Court however refrained from imposing costs despite hnding it a ht case to do so. B. The submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners with regard to the conditions imposed by DRT being onerous is without basis. The petitioners have not challenged the proceedings initiated under the 2OO2 Act in DRA'|. The petitioners have obtained partial stay from the secured creditor from confirming the same in favour of the highest bidder subject to the petitioners making payment of the said amount in two equal instalments instead of availing the statutory remedy available to the petitioners under the 2OO2 Act, the petitioners have come to the writ Court without any ground or exceptions to show that the petitioners have either suffered a breach of principles of natural justice or any infringement of their fundamenta,l rights or that the said order was passed without jurisdiction.

9. We also have sufficient doubt as to whether a writ petition will lie against the secured creditor which is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution or the person against whom the writ proceedings may be invoked under Artrcle 226 (1) of the Constitution of India. 5

10. W.l'].No.296 1a of 2025 is accordingll' < ismissed along with all <:onnected applications. We reiteratc lor the second time thal this is a ht case for imposing he:trr costs, but the Court refrair-rs from doing so. //TRUE COPYII SD/. A. SRIN ASsr\ANr IVASA REDDY REGISTR \ ECTION OFFICER i. ff : ff Lfi fL["_ #E fi ? iy,,l#5fl'J:t t#r : a,e ro p U c] a To SA CJ --- -- :-- ' - { :,'i ; 1i[1 I ,',.,' HIGH COURT DATED:0811012025 ORDER WP.No.29618 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. .A?c \o"g