Authority: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 23 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Writ Petition No. 30991/2026, IA No. 1 of 2026, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 151 CPC.
  • Petitioners: M/s Raj Kamal Enterprises (proprietor Gottipati Venkateswara Rao) and individuals Gottipati Venkateswara Rao, Gottipati Ratna Kumari, Vadlapudi Nirmala, and Guthikonda Janardhana Rao.
  • Respondents: Shriram Finance Limited (represented by its authorised officer and branch manager) and the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Visakhapatnam.
  • Relief Sought: A writ of mandamus to restrain the e‑auction scheduled for 23‑10‑2026, issued pursuant to the Intended Sale Notice dated 23‑09‑2026, on the ground that the respondents failed to comply with mandatory statutory requirements under Sections 13(2), 13(4) and 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules 8(1), 8(2), 8(5), 8(6) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – specifically regarding service of notices, notice period, valuation and reserve price.
  • Additional Background: Petitioners had filed S.A. No. 724 of 2026 before the DRT seeking a stay of the auction. An office order (F.No. 2/6/DRAT/Kol/2022/901 dated 15‑10‑2026) indicated that the Presiding Officer of the DRT, Visakhapatnam, was on leave from 19‑10‑2026 to 23‑10‑2026, rendering the pending application unhearable.
  • Legal Basis: The Court noted that under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the DRT is the competent forum for such applications, and quoted subsections 5 and 6 which mandate disposal within sixty days (extendable, but not exceeding four months) and provide for appellate intervention if the period is exceeded.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that proceeding with the e‑auction without adhering to the statutory procedure is illegal and arbitrary.
  • It directed the DRT to dispose of the stay application (S.A. No. 724/2026) within two weeks of receipt of this order, in accordance with Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
  • The respondents were ordered to maintain status‑quo concerning the property mentioned in the writ affidavit and the sale notice until the DRT’s decision.
  • No order as to costs was made.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Banking Regulation