WP/2158/2026 of Mathamsetti Naga Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Vs Shriram Finance Limited, on 1 March 2026

1. MATHAMSETTI NA RAMALINGESWAR BUSINESS, R/O. RANGREEZPETA, GODAVARI DISTRI

2. MATHAMSETTI MA YEARS, R/O. D RANGREEZPETA, GODAVARI DISTRI

3. MATHAMSETTI LA YEARS, RIO. D RANGREEZPETA, GODAVARI DISTRI

1. SHRIRAM FINANC 5/1, 2ND FLOOR KOTIPALLI BUS ST

2. THE BRANCH MAN 12-5/1, 2ND FLOO KOTIPALLI BUS ST E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 2158/2026 AGA VEERA VENKATA SATYANAR RA RAO, AGED 51 YEARS, D.NO. 10-7-5/1, DASARI VAN RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM-533 ICT. ADHAVI,, W/O. MNW SATYANARA D.NO. 10-7-5/1, DASARI VAN RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM-533 ICT. AKSHMI,, W/O. RAMALINGESWARA D.NO. 10-7-5/1, DASARI VAN RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM-533 ICT. ...P AND CE LIMITED, AUTHORIZED OFFICE R, ORUGANTIVARI STREET, INNI TAND, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM-533 NAGER, SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMIT OR, ORUGANTIVARI STREET, INN TAND, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM-533 DESH

DRANATH ROY GEDELA RAYANA,, S/O. OCCUPATION N I STREET,

EAST AYANA, AGED I STREET, 105, EAST A RAO, AGED I STREET, 105, EAST PETITIONER(S) ER, D.NO.6-12- SPETA, OPP. 3 101. TED, D. NO. 6- ISPETA, OPP. 3 101

...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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus to i) Declare the action of Respondent No. 1 in issuing the Possession Notice dated 29.12.2025 and the Demand Notice dated 26.09.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Section 26D of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. ii) Set aside the Possession Notice dated 29.12.2025 pertaining to the Schedule Properties situated in R.S.No.162/1A, Rajanagaram Village. 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the Possession Notice dated 29.12.2025 issued under Section 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. MALLAVOLU NIKITHA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. O UDAYA KUMAR

The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed challenging the possession notice dated 29.12.2025 that was issued and the demand notice dated 26.09.2025 that was issued, under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’), by the principal borrower and the guarantors.

2. Heard Ms. Mallavolu Nikitha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. O.Udaya Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2- financial institution.

3. The 1st petitioner is the principal borrower, who availed loan from the 1st respondent-financial institution. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors and they offered their immovable property as security for repayment of the loan amount. As the principal borrower committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the 1st respondent-financial institution initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act and issued possession notice and demand notice, which are impugned in this writ petition. The petitioners mainly challenged the legal validity of the said measures initiated by the 1st respondent-financial institution under the SARFAESI Act on the ground that the secured asset was not registered with the Central Registry of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India, as required under Section 26B of the SARFAESI Act and in view of the bar engrafted under Section 26D of the SARFAESI Act that the 1st respondent-financial institution cannot initiate any measures under the SARFAESI Act.

4. When the matter came up for admission, considering the copy of the Asset Based Search Report produced by the petitioners, which is made available at page No.25 of the writ papers, this Court, on 04.02.2026, while granting time to the respondents to file counter affidavit, granted interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 29.12.2025 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

5. A copy of the Registration of Security Interest Acknowledgment Report was filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents into the Court and a copy of the same was also furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioners. As per the aforesaid report, the secured asset was registered with the Central Registry of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India in compliance with Section 26B of the SARFAESI Act. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the secured asset was registered with wrong PAN number and with wrong name of the borrower.

6. We have carefully scrutinized the aforesaid report filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-financial institution. The name of the borrower is correctly mentioned in the said report. Though, the PAN number was wrongly mentioned, according to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it was due to typographical mistake and he has produced a copy of the PAN of the borrower before the Court today. It shows that it was registered with PAN No.BFGPM3770Q. The other details are fully tallying with the details mentioned in the above report filed by learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Therefore, it is now evident that the secured asset has been registered with the Central Registry of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India. Therefore, the bar engrafted under Section 26D of the SARFAESI Act will not apply. So, we do not find any valid legal ground to entertain the writ petition and to stall the further proceedings of the financial institution.

7. Though, we are of the view that the writ petition has to be dismissed with costs, as the petitioners have obtained interim order on a false ground that the secured asset was not registered with the Central Registry of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India, as the learned counsel for the petitioners satisfied the Court that they are under the impression that it was not registered with Central Registry of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India, as the PAN number is not correctly shown in the report obtained by them, we refrain from imposing costs.

8. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Date: 02.03.2026 MDP