MITTAPALLI AGRO ENTERPRICES Vs. CANARA BANK, ARM BRANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Pemmasani, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. T.B.L. Murthy, learned panel advocate of the respondent bank, who is appearing on caveat.

(2.) In view of the default committed by the petitioner-firm, who is the principal borrower, in repayment of the loan amount, the respondent-bank has initiated measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'). The petitioner has earlier challenged the said measures initiated under the SARFAESI Act by the respondent-bank, by way of filing a Securitisation Application in S.A.No.367 of 2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. But, the said Securitisation Application was dismissed for default. It appears that the petitioner has filed an application to set aside the said order of dismissal of the S.A. for default and the same is still pending. While so, it appears that the bank has sold away the secured asset in the public auction. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking amendment of the prayer in the Securitisation Application, to challenge the said sale on the grounds which are urged in the instant writ petition.

(3.) Alleging that the said amendment application is not received by the Tribunal and that the application filed to set aside the order of dismissal of the S.A. for default is posted to a distant date, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction, to challenge the sale of the secured asset in the auction.