WP/13959/2026 of Jangam Nagamani Vs The Union of India on 12 July 2026

1. JANGAM NAGAMANI, W/O. LATE JANGAM SIVA KUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS,

2. JANGAM CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/O. LATE JANGAM SIVA KUMAR, AGED 35 YEAR

3. JANGAM MANIKANTA, S/O. LATE JANGAM SIVA KUMAR, AGED 31 YEARS.

4. JANGAM BALANALINI, D/O. LATE JANGAM SIVA KUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT D.NO. 1-162-11, GOTHULOMILIU VEEDI PEDANA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521366.

...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, UNION OF INDIA, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING,SANAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110001.

2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, CHATAPARRU BRANCH ELURU DISTRICT - 534004.

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, CHATAPARRU BRANCH,

ELURU DISTRICT - 534004.

4. SRI SAILESH, S/O. UNKNOWN, APPOINTED AS ADVOCATE- COMMISSIONER IN CRI.M.P. NO. 70 OF 2026 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE- CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM - 521001.

...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Possession Notice, dt. 08.01.2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent under sub section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (in Short SARFAESI) Act, 2002 without considering Petitioners OTS Application submitted on 15.04.2026, under Section 13 (3-A) of said Act, as illegal, irregular, irrational and in contravention of decision made the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents, more particularly 4th Respondent not to interfere with petitioners possession over their secured assets and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the operation of Possession Notice, dt. 08.01.2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent, pending disposal of main Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. THARIGOPULA SURYA CHAITANYA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. I KASI ANNAPURNA CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL The Court made the following:

& THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 13959 OF 2026

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) Ms. P. Satya Haritha, learned counsel, representing Sri Tharigopula Surya Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that they intends to withdraw the writ petition in view of the fact that the matter is settled under One Time Settlement Scheme.

The statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

_________________________ JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM Dated: 13.07.2026 PGR

Whether the order is: Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

& THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

W.P.NO: 13959 OF 2026

Dt. 13.07.2026

PGR