ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: SARFAESI Act — Fresh auction notice during pendenc...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: SARFAESI Act — Fresh auction notice during pendenc...: advocatemmmohan AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT  SARFAESI Act — Fresh auction notice during pendency of S.A. — Availability of alternative remedy be...

AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

SARFAESI Act — Fresh auction notice during pendency of S.A. — Availability of alternative remedy before DRT (Paras 4–8)

Issue: Whether writ petition is maintainable challenging fresh sale notice issued during pendency of securitisation application before DRT.
Facts: Petitioners/guarantors challenged fresh auction notice dated 17.02.2026 issued by Union Bank of India during pendency of S.A.No.713 of 2025 before DRT; earlier auction notice dated 28.10.2025 was already under challenge and interim order staying confirmation of sale was operating, but sale failed for want of bidders.
Held: Since petitioners have effective remedy before DRT either by filing fresh S.A. or interlocutory application challenging subsequent sale notice, High Court relegated parties to DRT while granting limited protection. (Paras 4–8)

---

SARFAESI proceedings — Interim protection — Status quo pending consideration by DRT (Para 8(i))

Issue: Whether interim protection should be granted pending consideration of challenge to fresh auction notice.
Facts: Petitioners sought stay of auction scheduled pursuant to fresh sale notice dated 17.02.2026 contending that challenge to earlier measures was pending before DRT.
Held: Petitioners were permitted to approach DRT within one week challenging fresh sale notice, and meanwhile, status quo existing as on date of order was directed to be maintained till DRT passed orders on such application. (Para 8(i))

---

Debt Recovery Tribunal — Expeditious disposal — Duty of parties to cooperate (Para 8(ii))

Issue: Whether time-bound directions for disposal of securitisation application are warranted.
Facts: S.A.No.713 of 2025 challenging SARFAESI measures remained pending while parties continued interlocutory litigation relating to auction notices and OTS proposals.
Held: Parties were directed to cooperate with DRT for expeditious hearing, and DRT was requested to dispose of S.A. preferably within two months after completion of arguments. (Para 8(ii)) 

Passport — Minor child — Application by single mother — Consent/signature of father not mandatory in absence of prohibitory order (Paras 7–14) Issue: Whether passport authorities can insist upon consent of father or divorce decree for issuing passport to minor child when application is made by mother as single parent. Facts: Petitioner, living separately from husband since 2022 due to matrimonial disputes and pending criminal/DV proceedings, applied for passport for her 4-year-old daughter by submitting Annexures-C and D declaring herself as single parent; passport authorities orally insisted upon divorce/judicial separation decree or father’s consent. Held: Under the Passports Act, 1967 and Passport Rules, a single parent can apply for passport of minor child without consent/signature of other parent if prescribed declarations are furnished and there is no prohibitory order of competent Court. Respondents directed to process and issue passport. (Paras 7–14)

 AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

Passport — Minor child — Application by single mother — Consent/signature of father not mandatory in absence of prohibitory order (Paras 7–14)

Issue: Whether passport authorities can insist upon consent of father or divorce decree for issuing passport to minor child when application is made by mother as single parent.
Facts: Petitioner, living separately from husband since 2022 due to matrimonial disputes and pending criminal/DV proceedings, applied for passport for her 4-year-old daughter by submitting Annexures-C and D declaring herself as single parent; passport authorities orally insisted upon divorce/judicial separation decree or father’s consent.
Held: Under the Passports Act, 1967 and Passport Rules, a single parent can apply for passport of minor child without consent/signature of other parent if prescribed declarations are furnished and there is no prohibitory order of competent Court. Respondents directed to process and issue passport. (Paras 7–14)

---

Passports — Annexure-C declaration — Sufficiency — Refusal on technical grounds impermissible (Paras 5, 9–13)

Issue: Whether passport application of minor can be kept pending for want of supporting divorce/judicial separation documents despite submission of Annexure-C.
Facts: Petitioner submitted Annexure-C and D declarations explaining absence of father’s consent and pendency of matrimonial disputes, but respondents kept application on hold stating that supporting legal documents were not furnished.
Held: Once Annexure-C declaration explaining absence of consent is furnished, authorities are bound to consider application in accordance with Rules; insistence on divorce decree or judicial separation proceedings is contrary to statutory scheme and settled law. (Paras 5, 9–13)

---

Constitution of India — Article 21 — Right to travel abroad — Minor child and single parent — Liberal interpretation (Paras 8–13)

Issue: Whether denial of passport to minor child due to non-consent of estranged father violates constitutional rights.
Facts: Minor child was in exclusive custody of mother and no proceedings prohibiting issuance of passport were pending against petitioner; authorities nevertheless refused to process application.
Held: Right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution; administrative authorities cannot mechanically deny passport to minor child merely because estranged father withheld consent, particularly when single parent complied with prescribed procedure. (Paras 8–13

Forgery — Fake document produced in judicial proceedings — Scope of Sections 195 Cr.P.C./215 BNSS and 340 Cr.P.C./379 BNSS — Prior fabrication — Police prosecution permissible (Paras 11(iv)–(vi), 12–13) Issue: Whether Court complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is mandatory where forged document was fabricated before production in Court. Facts: Appellant relied upon a fabricated birth certificate in judicial proceedings to claim juvenility; inquiry by Juvenile Justice Board and hospital authorities established that certificate was fake and never issued by Government General Hospital, Guntur. Held: Following Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. applies only where forgery is committed after document comes into custodia legis; where fabrication occurred prior to production before Court, police prosecution is maintainable without resort to Section 340 Cr.P.C. procedure. (Paras 11(iv)–(vi), 12–13)

 AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

Juvenile Justice Act — Plea of juvenility — Determination of age — Reliance on school records — Fake birth certificate rejected (Paras 3–9, 13(1))

Issue: Whether appellant convicted under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was a juvenile on the date of offence.
Facts: Appellant convicted for rape of a 6-year-old girl claimed juvenility by producing a birth certificate showing date of birth as 28.06.2001; however, Juvenile Justice Board, after inquiry, found the certificate to be fake and relied on school records showing date of birth as 22.09.2000.
Held: Under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, age determined by Juvenile Justice Board based on authentic records is presumed correct; appellant was not a juvenile on date of offence and had to be treated as an adult. (Paras 3–9, 13(1))

---

Forgery — Fake document produced in judicial proceedings — Scope of Sections 195 Cr.P.C./215 BNSS and 340 Cr.P.C./379 BNSS — Prior fabrication — Police prosecution permissible (Paras 11(iv)–(vi), 12–13)

Issue: Whether Court complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is mandatory where forged document was fabricated before production in Court.
Facts: Appellant relied upon a fabricated birth certificate in judicial proceedings to claim juvenility; inquiry by Juvenile Justice Board and hospital authorities established that certificate was fake and never issued by Government General Hospital, Guntur.
Held: Following Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. applies only where forgery is committed after document comes into custodia legis; where fabrication occurred prior to production before Court, police prosecution is maintainable without resort to Section 340 Cr.P.C. procedure. (Paras 11(iv)–(vi), 12–13)

---

Judicial proceedings — Production of fake document — Direction for criminal prosecution — Accountability of persons involved (Paras 10–13)

Issue: Whether action should be initiated against persons producing fabricated birth certificate before Court.
Facts: Appellant filed notarized affidavit and relied upon fake birth certificate to establish juvenility despite contradictory Aadhaar and school records; Juvenile Justice Board confirmed fabrication after examining hospital authorities.
Held: Production and use of fabricated document in judicial proceedings affects administration of justice and cannot be ignored; Court directed transmission of material to Superintendent of Police, Guntur for investigation and prosecution against all persons involved in fabrication of birth certificate. (Paras 10–13)

Execution proceedings — Arrest of judgment debtor — Pendency of insolvency protection petition — Personal liberty considerations (Paras 18–25, 27) Issue: Whether executing Court was justified in issuing fresh arrest warrants during pendency of insolvency protection proceedings. Facts: Execution Courts issued fresh arrest warrants against judgment debtor after noting absence of subsisting interim protection, though this Court earlier directed disposal of pending protection application within two weeks. Delay in disposal of protection petition was not attributable to judgment debtor. Held: Non-disposal of protection application within time stipulated by High Court cannot operate to prejudice judgment debtor; courts must exercise caution where personal liberty is involved even in civil proceedings. Accordingly, execution orders issuing arrest warrants were kept in abeyance till disposal of insolvency protection application. (Paras 18–25, 27)

 AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

Provincial Insolvency Act — Interim protection before adjudication — Inherent powers of Insolvency Court — Remand (Paras 10–17, 26)

Issue: Whether Insolvency Court can grant protection against arrest before adjudicating debtor as insolvent.
Facts: Petitioner filed I.P.No.7 of 2018 seeking adjudication as insolvent and filed I.A.No.26 of 2018 under Section 31 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 seeking protection from arrest in execution proceedings; Trial Court dismissed petition relying on earlier view that protection under Section 31 is available only after adjudication as insolvent.
Held: In view of Full Bench decision in Ramalingam v. Radha overruling earlier contrary view, Insolvency Court possesses inherent power to grant interim protection even before adjudication depending on facts and circumstances of case. Order dismissing protection petition set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 10–17, 26)

---

Execution proceedings — Arrest of judgment debtor — Pendency of insolvency protection petition — Personal liberty considerations (Paras 18–25, 27)

Issue: Whether executing Court was justified in issuing fresh arrest warrants during pendency of insolvency protection proceedings.
Facts: Execution Courts issued fresh arrest warrants against judgment debtor after noting absence of subsisting interim protection, though this Court earlier directed disposal of pending protection application within two weeks. Delay in disposal of protection petition was not attributable to judgment debtor.
Held: Non-disposal of protection application within time stipulated by High Court cannot operate to prejudice judgment debtor; courts must exercise caution where personal liberty is involved even in civil proceedings. Accordingly, execution orders issuing arrest warrants were kept in abeyance till disposal of insolvency protection application. (Paras 18–25, 27)

---

Precedent — Reliance on overruled judgment — Effect on validity of order (Paras 10–17)

Issue: Whether Trial Court was justified in relying on precedent already overruled by Full Bench.
Facts: Trial Court dismissed interim protection petition relying on decision in Sinnaswamy Chettiar v. Aligi Goundan, through decision in Sanapala Narasamma case, holding that no protection could be granted before adjudication of insolvency.
Held: Since the said view stood overruled by Full Bench in Ramalingam v. Radha recognizing inherent powers of Insolvency Court to grant interim orders before adjudication, the impugned order based on overruled precedent was unsustainable. (Paras 10–17)

Evidence — Injured eyewitness — Reliability — Medical evidence contradicting ocular version — Testimony unsafe for conviction (Paras 14(viii)–(xvi)) Issue: Whether sole testimony of injured eyewitness PW.13 was reliable to sustain conviction. Facts: PW.13 claimed that while intervening during attack on deceased, accused hacked him with hunting sickles causing injuries on head, knee and mouth; however, doctors PW.19 and PW.20 opined injuries were consistent with blunt-force impact/fall from motorcycle and found no corresponding incised injuries or dental injuries as alleged. Evidence of PW.9 and Investigating Officer suggested PW.13 sustained injuries in a road accident after dashing a stationed vehicle. Held: Medical evidence materially contradicted ocular testimony, creating serious doubt regarding presence of PW.13 at scene and manner of injuries; his evidence was not wholly trustworthy and unsafe to base conviction upon. (Paras 14(viii)–(xvi))

 AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

Appeal against acquittal — Interference by appellate Court — Possible view doctrine — Acquittal confirmed (Paras 14–16)

Issue: Whether judgment acquitting accused of offences under Sections 148, 302, 307, 326 and 506 r/w 149 IPC required interference in appeal against acquittal.
Facts: Trial Court acquitted accused in a faction-murder case arising out of land dispute; most eyewitnesses including PWs.1 to 4, 7 to 12 and mediators turned hostile, and prosecution mainly relied upon injured eyewitness PW.13. Trial Court found serious improbabilities in prosecution version and doubted presence of PW.13 at scene.
Held: When the view taken by Trial Court is a “possible view” based on evidence on record, appellate Court should not interfere merely because another view is possible; double presumption of innocence operates in favour of acquitted accused. Acquittal confirmed. (Paras 14–16)

---

Evidence — Injured eyewitness — Reliability — Medical evidence contradicting ocular version — Testimony unsafe for conviction (Paras 14(viii)–(xvi))

Issue: Whether sole testimony of injured eyewitness PW.13 was reliable to sustain conviction.
Facts: PW.13 claimed that while intervening during attack on deceased, accused hacked him with hunting sickles causing injuries on head, knee and mouth; however, doctors PW.19 and PW.20 opined injuries were consistent with blunt-force impact/fall from motorcycle and found no corresponding incised injuries or dental injuries as alleged. Evidence of PW.9 and Investigating Officer suggested PW.13 sustained injuries in a road accident after dashing a stationed vehicle.
Held: Medical evidence materially contradicted ocular testimony, creating serious doubt regarding presence of PW.13 at scene and manner of injuries; his evidence was not wholly trustworthy and unsafe to base conviction upon. (Paras 14(viii)–(xvi))

---

Criminal trial — Motive — Weak and doubtful motive — Effect where eyewitness account unreliable (Paras 12(i)–(v))

Issue: Whether prosecution established convincing motive for accused to murder deceased.
Facts: Prosecution alleged land dispute arising from agreement of sale and pending civil suit as motive; however, wife of deceased/PW.5 admitted deceased was involved in several faction disputes and criminal litigations, had multiple enemies in village, and civil suit itself was dismissed holding entire sale consideration was paid.
Held: Alleged motive attributed to accused was weak, shaky and doubtful; where eyewitness account itself was unreliable, failure to establish convincing motive further weakened prosecution case. (Paras 12(i)–(v))