WP/26755/2024 of POKURU KAMESH Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 27 January 2026

1. POKURU KAMES ABOUT 52 YEARS SHIRDI SAI NAGA NELLORE, TIRUPA

2. POKURU VANI,, W OCC HOUSE WIF NAGAR, NEAR ST TIRUPATI DISTRIC

3. VAIBHAV READYM SAKTHI NAGAR, TIRUPATI DISTRIC

1. THE STATE OF A SECRETARY, R DEPARTMENT, S GUNTUR DISTRICT

2. THE RESERVE BA MANAGER (OMBU

3. THE COMMISSIO E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JAN O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 26755/2024 H, S/O POKURU CHINNA KON , OCC BUSINESS, RESIDING AT D. AR, NEAR STAR KIDS SCHOOL, ATI DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE NELLOR W/O POKURU KAMESH, AGED ABO E, RESIDING AT D.NO. 4-7-215/3 TAR KIDS SCHOOL, FCI COLON CT (ERSTWHILE NELLORE DISTRICT MADES SHOWROOM,, R/O. PLOT GUDURU OM SAKTHI NAGAR CT (ERSTWHILE NELLORE DISTRICT ...P AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT REVENUE STAMPS AND R SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, T, ANDHRA PRADESH. ANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY DSMAN) 6 SANSAD MARG, NEW DE ONER AND INSPECTOR GE DESH

NUARY DRANATH ROY GEDELA DAIAH AGED .NO. 4-7-215/3, FCI COLONY, RE DISTRICT). UT 51 YEARS, 3, SHIRDI SAI NY, NELLORE, T). T NO.27, OM R, NELLORE, T). PETITIONER(S) TS PRINCIPLE EGISTRATION AMARAVATHI, ITS GENERAL ELHI - 110001 ENERAL OF

REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

4. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, SRI BALAJI REGISTRATION DISTRICT, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

5. THE SUB REGISTRAR, GUDUR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE NELLORE DISTRICT)

6. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUCTION TEAM, ASV ADARSH COMPLEX, 719 PATHURI ROAD, OFF MOUNT ROAD, NEAR THOUSAND LIGHT METRO STATION, BEHIND RAJ VIDEO VISION, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU - 60002.

7. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER/MANAGER, HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 59-14-24, 1ST FLOOR, SHANTHI PLAZA, GAYATHRI NAGAR, NEAR BENZ CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

8. VERRASURA CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, S/O LATE CHENCHU RAGHAVA REDDY, RESIDING AT D.NO. 3/177-8, DHURJETI NAGAR, GUDUR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE NELLORE DISTRICT).

9. YERASURA SUHASINI, W/O VERRASURA CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, RESIDING AT D.NO. 3/177-8, DHURJETI NAGAR, GUDUR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE NELLORE DISTRICT). ...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 a Writ of Mandamus declaring a) The Notice issued under sec 13(2) of SARFAESI Act to the Petitioners and its consequential proceedings are null and void and against the procedure contemplated under the SARFAESI Act is illegal, arbitrary in violation of procedure contemplated under SARFAESI Act and in gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice, b) To declare that the sale certificate issued in favor of Respondent No.9 is without following the Principles of Natural Justice and in gross violation of provisions of Sec 13(2),

Sec 13(4), sec 13(8), Sec 20 of SARFAESI Act and rule 8 (5), 8(6), 8(7) of Security interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. c) To direct the Respondents No. 6 and 7 to consider the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 request for One Time Settlement Scheme. d) to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. HEMADRI V S S R R CHANDRAKANTH

2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS

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

As per order dated 20.11.2024, stay of further proceedings was granted by this Court, restraining respondent Nos.6 and 7 from dealing further with the properties subject to the petitioners depositing 50% of the due amount within a period of four weeks from the said date and the remaining 50% of the amount within a period of four weeks thereafter. The said order was passed long back about more than one period. But, till now not even a single pie was deposited in compliance with the said conditional order based on which the stay was granted. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioners requests to extend the time. As the petitioners have flagrantly flouted the direction of this Court and did not comply with the condition imposed for granting of stay even after expiry of more than one year period, we are not at all inclined to extend the time. The conduct of the petitioners in committing default is very much apparent in not even depositing a single pie in compliance with the direction of this Court. Therefore, the stay granted on 20.11.2024 is hereby vacated for non compliance with the condition imposed by this Court, while granting stay.

2. At this stage, after passing the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioners seek permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal concerned seeking redressal of his grievance.

3. Permission is accorded.

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 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: 28.01.2026 MDP