Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/2714/2026 of SRI RAM ENTERPRISES Vs INDIAN BANK on 11 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3418] THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2714/2026
APHC010040492026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 2714/2026
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. SRI RAM ENTERPRISES, PROP. CHALLA SRI RAMA CHANDRA MURTHY, D.NO.7-17, GUDDIVANTUMU CENTRE, GUDDIVANTUMU, TALLAREVU MANDAL-533
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. (BORROWER)
2. CHALLA SRIRAMACHANDRA MURTHY,, S/O. NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 4-204, KAPULA RAMALAYAM VEEDHI, NEAR KAPULA RAMALAYAM, PATAVALA, THALLAREVU MANDAL- 533 461, KAKINADA DISTRICT. (GUARANTOR)
3. CHALLA SOMA SITA VEERALAKSHMI, W/O. CHALLA SRIRAMACHANDRA MURTHY, AGED YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 4-204, KAPULA RAMALAYAM VEEDHI, NEAR KAPULA RAMALAYAM, PATAVALA, THALLAREVU MANDAL-533 461, KAKINADA DISTRICT. (GUARANTOR)
...PETITIONER(S) AND
1. INDIAN BANK, PB NO. 5555, 254-260, AVVAI SHANMUGAM SALAI, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI-600 014.
2. CHALLA POLADEVI, W/O. NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 4-204, KAPULA RAMALAYAM VEEDHI, NEAR KAPULA RAMALAYAM, PATAVALA, THALLAREVU MANDAL-533 461, KAKINADA DISTRICT. (GUARANTOR)
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER/AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK, BHASKARNAGAR BRANCH, KAKINADA. 533003
...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 toPleased to issue a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i) To declare the Demand Notice issued under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act dated 20.11.2025 by the 2nd Respondent Authorized Officer/Bank as illegal and without jurisdiction in view of the bar under Section 26D of the of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act ii) o set aside the notice issued under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act dated 20.11.2025 by the 2nd Respondent Authorized Officer/Bank and all consequential proceedings and
iii) and pass 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 Notice issued under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act dated 20-11-2025 by the 2nd respondent Ban/Authorized Officer pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. MALLAVOLU NIKITHA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SREEDHAR VALIVETI
The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents/Bank.
2. Challenging the legal validity of the notice issued under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’) by the respondents/Bank, the petitioners being the principal borrowers have filed this petition on various grounds that are urged in the writ petition. One of the grounds urged is that the secured asset is not registered with Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India and there is a bar to proceed against secured asset under Section 26D of the Act, when the secured asset is not registered with Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Bank on instructions submits that the secured asset is in fact registered with Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India but by mistake door number etc., relating to the secured asset was wrongly mentioned in the Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India and they are taking steps to rectify the said defects and would submit that thereafter, they will issue fresh notice under Section 13(2) of the Act by withdrawing the earlier notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act which is now questioned in this writ petition.
4. Therefore, recording the above submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, as it is stated that they are withdrawing the impugned notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and that they intend to issue fresh notice and proceed further, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
_______________________________________________ JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Date: 12.02.2026 SA/SCS
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 2714/2026 Date:- 12.02.2026
SA/SCS