Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/4013/2026 of Mittapalli Agro Enterprices Vs CANARA Bank, on 12 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3418] FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO WRIT PETITION No.4013
APHC010069082026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.4013 of 2026
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. MITTAPALLI AGRO ENTERPRICES, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MITTAPALLI RAMESH BABU, S/O. PANDURANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.4-19-94/1, VIKAS NAGAR, 6TH LANE, GUNTUR TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH – 522007.
...PETITIONER AND
1. CANARA BANK, ARM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER CIRCLE OFFICE, D. NO 54-16-4B, GROUND FLOOR, LAKSHMI AVENUE, SRINIVASA NAGAR BANK COLONY, RING ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH-520008.
...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. VINOD KUMAR PEMMASANI
CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.4013 of 2026
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. T B L MURTHY The Court made the following:
CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.4013 of 2026
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.4013 of 2026
O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)
Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Pemmasani, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. T.B.L. Murthy, learned panel advocate of the respondent bank, who is appearing on caveat.
2. In view of the default committed by the petitioner-firm, who is the principal borrower, in repayment of the loan amount, the respondent- bank has initiated measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’). The petitioner has earlier challenged the said measures initiated under the SARFAESI Act by the respondent-bank, by way of filing a Securitisation Application in S.A.No.367 of 2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. But, the said Securitisation Application was dismissed for default. It appears that the petitioner has filed an application to set aside the said order of dismissal of the S.A. for default and the same is still pending. While so, it appears that the bank has sold away the secured asset in the public auction. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking amendment of the prayer in the Securitisation Application, to challenge the said sale on the grounds which are urged in the instant writ petition.
CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.4013 of 2026
3. Alleging that the said amendment application is not received by the Tribunal and that the application filed to set aside the order of dismissal of the S.A. for default is posted to a distant date, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction, to challenge the sale of the secured asset in the auction.
4. As the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which is the appropriate forum constituted under the special enactment with special mechanism for redressal of the grievances relating to the measures initiated under the SARFAESI Act, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner has to pursue its remedy before the said Tribunal.
5. However, as it is stated that the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order of dismissal of the Securitisation Application for default is not being considered and it is posted to a distant date, we are of the considered view that a direction is required to be given to the Tribunal to dispose of the said application expeditiously on merits.
6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pursue its remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, where it has already filed a Securitisation Application and an application to set aside the order of dismissal of the said Securitisation Application for default. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, is directed to hear the said application filed to set aside the order of dismissal of the S.A. for default on merits and dispose of the same expeditiously by passing an appropriate order according to law, within one week from the date of receipt of this order.
CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.4013 of 2026
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Date: 13.02.2026 Note:- Issue CC by 17.02.2026. (B/o) IBL/MDP
CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.4013 of 2026
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.4013 of 2026
Dt: 13.02.2026 IBL