The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that when an appeal is pending before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), and an application for condonation of delay is yet to be decided, it is appropriate to direct maintenance of status quo regarding possession until DRAT passes suitable orders. This order upholds the High Court’s power to grant interim relief to prevent rendering appellate proceedings academic, reaffirming the role of writ jurisdiction in extraordinary circumstances under Article 226. The ruling serves as binding precedent for subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh and as persuasive authority for other jurisdictions handling similar SARFAESI proceedings.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/28833/2025 of BALIBOINA SIVA PRASAD Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH |
| CNR | APHC010559592025 |
| Date of Registration | 16-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, Chief Justice & R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Bench | THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Type of Law | Administrative / Banking Law / SARFAESI |
| Questions of Law | Whether High Courts may grant status quo and direct DRAT to consider condonation application on merits where delay in filing appeal is in issue |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that where an appeal is pending before DRAT and an application for condonation of delay is also pending, it is appropriate to direct DRAT to decide the condonation application on its own merits. Until such orders are passed, status quo is to be maintained regarding the possession of the petitioners. This prevents the appellate proceedings from becoming academic and ensures fairness in adjudication under SARFAESI. The writ was accordingly disposed with directions. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners had filed an appeal before DRAT, Kolkata, which was registered as Appeal Diary No. 1131 of 2025. The Registry of DRAT raised an issue of delay in filing the appeal; petitioners disputed this and filed an application for condonation of delay. Meanwhile, the bank sought to recover possession, risking rendering the appellate proceedings infructuous. The writ petition was filed seeking status quo pending hearing in DRAT. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, DRATs, Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court affirmed that when the condonation of delay application in an appeal before the DRAT is pending, possession should not be disturbed until the DRAT rules on the application.
- Directs DRAT to consider applications for condonation of delay on their own merits, without interference from parallel proceedings.
- Lawyers may cite this as authority to seek interim status quo orders in writ petitions challenging SARFAESI proceedings where appellate remedies are still in process.
- Ensures that the right to appeal is not rendered meaningless by dispossession prior to adjudication of condonation applications.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that the appeal was pending before DRAT, Kolkata, and that there was a dispute regarding whether there was any delay in its filing.
- Noted that an application for condonation of delay had been filed as an abundant caution.
- Observed that allowing dispossession proceedings to go on would make the pending appellate proceedings before DRAT academic.
- Exercised its powers under Article 226 to direct the DRAT to consider the condonation application on its merits and to maintain status quo regarding possession until such adjudication.
- Emphasized the necessity to protect the efficacy of appellate remedies, particularly in proceedings under SARFAESI.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The appeal is pending before DRAT and the application for condonation of delay has been filed, though there is allegedly no delay.
- If dispossession is allowed, the appeal before the DRAT will become purely academic.
Respondent (Bank, State)
- The Bank is seeking to recover the possession from the petitioners.
Factual Background
The petitioners challenged an order directing their eviction from the property under the SARFAESI Act, while their appeal against this order was pending before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata. There was a dispute over delay in filing the appeal, with the petitioners maintaining there was no delay, but nevertheless filing a condonation of delay application. In the meanwhile, the Bank was proceeding to take physical possession, prompting the petitioners to file the writ petition seeking a stay to preserve their rights pending DRAT’s decision.
Statutory Analysis
The court referenced the procedures under the SARFAESI Act concerning the recovery of possession of secured assets, as well as the appellate process before the DRAT. The court invoked Article 226 of the Constitution to protect the effectiveness of appellate remedies. The primary statutory discussion centered on the authority of the DRAT to consider condonation of delay applications and the appropriateness of interim measures pending such consideration.
Procedural Innovations
- The High Court expressly directed the DRAT to consider the condonation application on its own merits.
- Interim protection (status quo) was granted pending a decision on condonation of delay, pending appeal.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies and affirms the principles of judicial protection of appellate remedies and interim relief under Article 226 in the context of SARFAESI proceedings.