SARFAESI proceedings — Non-service of notices — Questions to be agitated before DRT (Paras 2(iv), 3) Issue: Whether alleged defects in service of demand and possession notices justify writ interference. Facts: Petitioners alleged that demand notice dated 22.05.2023 under Section 13(2) SARFAESI Act and subsequent possession proceedings were not served in prescribed manner and auction proceedings were initiated illegally. Held: Such disputes relating to service, procedure and validity of SARFAESI measures are matters falling within jurisdiction of DRT and not for adjudication in writ proceedings at first instance. (Paras 2(iv), 3)

 

SARFAESI Act — Challenge to e-auction notice — Alternative remedy before DRT — Writ petition not maintainable (Paras 2(v), 3–4)

Issue: Whether High Court should entertain writ petition challenging e-auction sale notice issued under SARFAESI proceedings.
Facts: Petitioners challenged e-auction notice dated 06.01.2026 issued by Central Bank of India in respect of mortgaged residential flat, contending that demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and possession proceedings were not properly served; petitioners had already filed S.A.No.121 of 2026 before DRT and earlier obtained interim protection.
Held: Since statutory remedy under Section 17 SARFAESI Act was already invoked before DRT, all grievances relating to auction notice and recovery measures ought to be pursued before DRT; no ground for interference under Article 226 was made out. (Paras 2(v), 3–4)

---

SARFAESI proceedings — Non-service of notices — Questions to be agitated before DRT (Paras 2(iv), 3)

Issue: Whether alleged defects in service of demand and possession notices justify writ interference.
Facts: Petitioners alleged that demand notice dated 22.05.2023 under Section 13(2) SARFAESI Act and subsequent possession proceedings were not served in prescribed manner and auction proceedings were initiated illegally.
Held: Such disputes relating to service, procedure and validity of SARFAESI measures are matters falling within jurisdiction of DRT and not for adjudication in writ proceedings at first instance. (Paras 2(iv), 3)

---

Writ jurisdiction — SARFAESI recovery proceedings — Liberty to pursue statutory remedies (Para 4)

Issue: Whether dismissal of writ petition bars borrower from pursuing statutory remedies.
Facts: Petitioners sought protection against dispossession and auction of secured asset despite pendency of securitisation application before DRT.
Held: While dismissing writ petition at admission stage, Court reserved liberty to petitioners to pursue remedies available in law before DRT. (Para 4) 

Negotiable Instruments Act — Section 138 — Compounding at revisional stage — Permissibility (Paras 3–7) Issue: Whether offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be compounded during pendency of criminal revision against conviction. Facts: Petitioner convicted in C.C.No.254 of 2004 for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act, with conviction confirmed in appeal, filed applications during pendency of Criminal Revision Case seeking permission to compound offence on basis of settlement reached with complainant-finance company. Held: Since offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is compoundable in nature and parties voluntarily entered into compromise after settlement of dues, compounding was permitted even at revisional stage. (Paras 3–7)

 AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

Negotiable Instruments Act — Section 138 — Compounding at revisional stage — Permissibility (Paras 3–7)

Issue: Whether offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be compounded during pendency of criminal revision against conviction.
Facts: Petitioner convicted in C.C.No.254 of 2004 for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act, with conviction confirmed in appeal, filed applications during pendency of Criminal Revision Case seeking permission to compound offence on basis of settlement reached with complainant-finance company.
Held: Since offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is compoundable in nature and parties voluntarily entered into compromise after settlement of dues, compounding was permitted even at revisional stage. (Paras 3–7)

---

Compromise — Voluntariness — Satisfaction of complainant — Effect (Para 4)

Issue: Whether compromise between parties was genuine and voluntary.
Facts: Managing Partner of complainant-financier personally appeared before Court and stated that entire amount was received, compromise application was signed voluntarily without coercion, and he had no objection for release of accused.
Held: Upon satisfaction regarding genuineness and voluntariness of compromise, Court accepted settlement between parties. (Para 4)

---

Compounding of offence — Effect on conviction and sentence — Acquittal of accused (Paras 6–7)

Issue: Consequence of compounding offence under Section 138 N.I. Act after confirmation of conviction in appeal.
Facts: Conviction and sentence imposed by Trial Court and confirmed in Criminal Appeal were sought to be nullified on basis of compromise.
Held: Once offence was compounded, conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court and confirmed by Appellate Court stood set aside, accused was acquitted, and sureties were discharged. (Paras 6–7)

Procedural law — Rules are handmaids of justice — Balancing liberal approach with procedural discipline (Paras 7–10) Issue: Principles governing condonation of delay and restoration applications. Facts: Petitioner pleaded ignorance of conditional order directing payment of costs, while respondent opposed restoration contending that petitioner negligently failed to comply with earlier conditional orders. Held: While procedural rules are intended to advance justice and liberal approach should be adopted where refusal may defeat meritorious claims, courts must also guard against negligence and abuse of process; balance can be maintained by imposing realistic costs and conditions. (Paras 7–10)

AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

Condonation of delay and restoration — Liberal approach in partition suits — Opportunity to contest on merits (Paras 7–11)

Issue: Whether delay in seeking restoration of applications to set aside ex parte preliminary decree should be condoned.
Facts: In a partition suit between brother and sister, defendant was set ex parte and ex parte preliminary decree was passed; though applications for condonation of delay and setting aside decree were earlier allowed subject to payment of ₹5,000/- costs, defendant failed to comply with condition, resulting in dismissal of applications, after which restoration petitions with delays of 106 and 112 days were filed.
Held: Considering that dispute related to partition and valuable family property rights, Court adopted liberal approach to advance substantial justice and granted one final opportunity to contest suit on merits, subject to enhanced costs of ₹10,000/-. (Paras 7–11)

---

Procedural law — Rules are handmaids of justice — Balancing liberal approach with procedural discipline (Paras 7–10)

Issue: Principles governing condonation of delay and restoration applications.
Facts: Petitioner pleaded ignorance of conditional order directing payment of costs, while respondent opposed restoration contending that petitioner negligently failed to comply with earlier conditional orders.
Held: While procedural rules are intended to advance justice and liberal approach should be adopted where refusal may defeat meritorious claims, courts must also guard against negligence and abuse of process; balance can be maintained by imposing realistic costs and conditions. (Paras 7–10)

---

Partition suit — Senior citizens — Expeditious disposal — Direction to cooperate (Para 12)

Issue: Whether trial Court should be directed to expedite disposal of partition suit.
Facts: Both plaintiff and defendant in partition litigation were senior citizens and suit was pending since 2018.
Held: Trial Court was directed to expedite trial and dispose of suit as early as possible, and parties were directed to cooperate for early disposal. (Para 12)

NDPS Act — Bail — Non-commercial quantity of ganja — Statutory period over — Grant of bail (Paras 4–6) Issue: Whether accused charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 is entitled to regular bail. Facts: Petitioner/Accused No.1 was arrested in Crime No.60 of 2026 for alleged possession of 14 kilograms of ganja and remained in judicial custody from 05.03.2026; defence contended that quantity involved was non-commercial and statutory period had expired. Held: Considering that contraband involved was only 14 kilograms of ganja, constituting non-commercial quantity, and statutory period was over, Court enlarged accused on bail pending investigation. (Paras 4–6)

 AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

NDPS Act — Bail — Non-commercial quantity of ganja — Statutory period over — Grant of bail (Paras 4–6)

Issue: Whether accused charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 is entitled to regular bail.
Facts: Petitioner/Accused No.1 was arrested in Crime No.60 of 2026 for alleged possession of 14 kilograms of ganja and remained in judicial custody from 05.03.2026; defence contended that quantity involved was non-commercial and statutory period had expired.
Held: Considering that contraband involved was only 14 kilograms of ganja, constituting non-commercial quantity, and statutory period was over, Court enlarged accused on bail pending investigation. (Paras 4–6)

---

Bail — Pending investigation — Apprehension of absconding — Balancing liberty and investigation (Paras 5–7)

Issue: Whether bail should be denied on ground that investigation was still pending and accused may abscond.
Facts: Prosecution opposed bail contending that release of accused during pendency of investigation may hamper investigation and enable him to evade process of law.
Held: Court balanced investigation concerns by granting bail subject to stringent conditions including weekly appearance before Station House Officer, cooperation with investigation, non-tampering of evidence and surrender of passport. (Paras 5–7)

---

Bail conditions — Violation — Liberty to seek cancellation (Paras 6–7)

Issue: Effect of breach of bail conditions imposed by Court.
Facts: While granting bail, Court imposed conditions relating to execution of bond, appearance before police, non-interference with witnesses and surrender of passport.
Held: In event of violation of any bail condition, prosecution was given liberty to seek cancellation of bail. (Paras 6–7) 

Electricity Act — Section 42(5) — Consumer Fora jurisdiction — Not barred by existence of Electricity Redressal Forum (Paras 3–6) Issue: Whether District Consumer Commission lacks jurisdiction in disputes relating to electricity matters because of remedy under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Facts: Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited challenged orders of District Consumer Commissions contending that grievances relating to electricity supply and compensation could be adjudicated only by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under Electricity Act. Held: Following earlier Division Bench judgment in APSPDCL v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Court held that provisions of the Electricity Act do not oust jurisdiction of Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; remedy under Section 42(5) is only additional and not exclusive. (Paras 3–6)

 AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

Electricity Act — Section 42(5) — Consumer Fora jurisdiction — Not barred by existence of Electricity Redressal Forum (Paras 3–6)

Issue: Whether District Consumer Commission lacks jurisdiction in disputes relating to electricity matters because of remedy under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Facts: Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited challenged orders of District Consumer Commissions contending that grievances relating to electricity supply and compensation could be adjudicated only by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under Electricity Act.
Held: Following earlier Division Bench judgment in APSPDCL v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Court held that provisions of the Electricity Act do not oust jurisdiction of Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; remedy under Section 42(5) is only additional and not exclusive. (Paras 3–6)

---

Consumer Protection Act — Additional remedy — Electricity disputes — Concurrent jurisdiction (Para 5)

Issue: Whether affected persons can simultaneously invoke remedies under Consumer Protection Act despite remedies under Electricity Act.
Facts: Petitioners argued that victims of electrical accidents and electricity disputes must approach only forums constituted under Electricity Act.
Held: Sections 173 to 175 of the Electricity Act make it clear that remedies under Consumer Protection Act operate in addition to remedies under Electricity Act; affected persons are entitled to approach Consumer Fora for redressal. (Para 5)

---

Writ jurisdiction — Alternative statutory remedy — Relegation to appellate remedy under Consumer Protection Act (Paras 5–7)

Issue: Whether writ petitions challenging orders of Consumer Commissions should be entertained.
Facts: Electricity authorities questioned orders passed by District Consumer Commissions directly before High Court though appellate remedies were available under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Held: Since statutory appeals are available against orders of Consumer Fora and disputed questions are matters for adjudication before appropriate forums, writ petitions were dismissed granting liberty to avail alternative remedies under Consumer Protection Act. (Paras 5–7)