WP/9128/2026 of SMT RAKOTHI SANTHI Vs Fed bank Financial Services Limited, on 6 April 2026

1. SMT RAKOTHI SANTHI, W/O SATHYARAU GORLE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 1-38, WARD NO.1, BLOCK NO.1, SETTIVARI VEEDHI,

RAVIKAMATHAM VILLAGE AND

MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 531025

...PETITIONER AND

1. FED BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, DOOR NO. 45-34-13A, SURVEY NO. 391 1ST FLOOR, SURYA DEVI MANSION, AKKAYYAPALEM MAIN ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM -530016.

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, FED BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530017.

...RESPONDENT(S): CORAM: HON’BLE Mrs. JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Present: Mr. Sugali Mahesh Naik, Advocate for appellant. ***

WP-9128-2026 -2-

LISA GILL,J.

Petitioner is aggrieved by issuance of possession notice dated 26.02.2026 by respondent under Section 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short “SARFAESI Act”). She seeks setting aside of this notice as well as any further proceedings consequent thereto.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that loan facility for sum of Rs.25,00,000/- had been availed of on 22.02.2022 by mortgaging her residential property. There was a financial indiscipline due to unforeseen circumstances and her account was declared Non-Performing Asset (NPA). Notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) was issued on 08.12.2025 and 26.02.2026 respectively. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a detailed legal notice has been issued by petitioner on 10.03.2026 explaining the unforeseen and unfortunate conditions including medical issues and lack of income leading to financial indiscipline and requesting the respondent for One Time Settlement. However, respondents have rejected the request in a routine and mechanical manner without proper consideration and are insisting on payment of entire dues.

3. It is submitted that petitioner is constrained to file present writ petition on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, illegal recovery practices and imminent threat of sale of residential property despite availability of an alternative remedy. It is thus, prayed that this writ petition be allowed, as prayed for.

WP-9128-2026 -3-

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and have perused the file with his assistance.

5. Availment of financial facility by petitioner and subsequent financial indiscipline on her part leading to declaration of her account NPA and initiation of proceedings under SARFAESI Act are all a matter of record. It is a settled position that interference by this Court in a routine manner in such like matters is not called for. Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to point out any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance which calls for interference by this Court at this stage. All arguments as have been raised are well within the realm of consideration by learned Tribunal. There is no such jurisdictional or other issue presented before us, calling for intervention. We do not consider it appropriate to enter adjudication, at this stage. Gainful reference in this respect can be made to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110 and M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. And others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and another, 2023 (2) RCR (Civil) 771 and then in PHR Invent Educational Society Versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 AIR (SC) 1893, Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B.Sreenivasulu & ors., 2023 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 34.

6. In respect to prayer regarding a direction to respondents to offer a One Time Settlement is concerned, it is to be noted that there can be no such specific direction by the Court in this regard as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in The Bijnor Urban Cooperation Bank Limited, Bijnor & others Vs. Meenal Agarwal & others, 2023 (2) SCC 805.

WP-9128-2026 -4-

7. At this stage, in our considered opinion, no interference is called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It is open to petitioner to avail the efficacious alternative remedy(ies) available to her in accordance with law as well as pursue the matter regarding One Time Settlement with the respondents. Parties are always at liberty to arrive at a mutually acceptable settlement.

8. No other arguments were addressed.

9. Keeping in view the aforementioned, this Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner as aforesaid. No order as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly. (LISA GILL) JUDGE (NINALA JAYASURYA) JUDGE Date:07.04.2026 Ksj