WP/35995/2025 of SRI PRABHA LIFE SCIENCES Vs THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER on 6 January 2026

1. SRI PRABHA LIFE MANAGING PARTN NO 435 437 43 PRAKASHAM DIST

2. L. PRABHAVATI, W YEARS OCC BUS MANSOORABAD, L

3. . L. KRISHNA CHA OCC BUSINESS MANSOORABAD, L

1. THE AUTHORIZED Branch-2337-1350 Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased to issue an orde Mandamus declaring the execute the order in CRL The Chief Judicial Magis E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUAR O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 35995/2025 E SCIENCES, REP. BY L. KRISHNA NER, APIIC GROWTH CENTER PLO 37 ANNAGI VILLAGE MASDDIPA TRICT, A.P PIN - 523211. W/O. L. KRISHNA CHAITANYA, AG SINESS R/O. H NO 1-30, SAHA LB NAGAR, HYDERABAD. AITANYA, S/O. L. RANGA RAO, AG

R/O. H NO 1-30 SAHAR LB NAGAR, HYDERABAD. ...P AND D OFFICER, Union Bank of India, Trunk Road, Ongole-523001 A.P ...R le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High r or direction more particularly in the e deliberate action of the Responde L.MP NO. 70 of 2025 dated 21-07-20 strate Cum Principal Senior Civil Jud DESH

RY DRANATH ROY GEDELA A CHAITANYA OT NO 422, S ADU MANDAL GE ABOUT 50 ARA ESTATE, GE 53 YEARS RA ESTATE, PETITIONER(S) Ongole Main RESPONDENT aying that in the h Court may be nature of Writ of nt/s in trying to 25 on the file of dge despite the fact of subsequent OTS approved letter No.04001/NPA dated 22-07-2025 is contrary to the Principle of NOVATION (Section 62 of The Indian Contract Act 1872) and continuing the recovery measures under SARFAESI Act 2002, without issuing further notice to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and against the Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Article 14 , 16, 19 1(g) and 300-A of Constitution of India and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to grant Stay of all further proceedings in CrI.M.P.No. 70 of 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Senior Civil Judge at Ongole pending disposal of writ petition in the interest of justice 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 to direct the respondent Bank Authorities to reopen petitioner industry/unit and handover the keys to the petitioner to run the industry/unit by granting extension of time about 4 to 5 weeks for payment of balance OTS amount in the interest of Justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent:

1. V DYUMANI

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

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Union Bank of India.

2. Owing to the fact that the petitioners, who are the principal borrowers, have committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the respondent- Bank has initiated measures under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’). Challenging the said measures, the petitioners have earlier filed securitization application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. They have withdrawn the said application and accepted the offer given for one time settlement by the Bank. The Bank has agreed to receive a sum of Rs.5 crores on 18.12.2024 towards full and final settlement of the claim. As per the said one time settlement arrived at by both the parties, the petitioners have to pay the said amount by the end of March, 2025. But the petitioners have failed to pay the said sum of Rs.5 crores within the time stipulated. They have only paid Rs.1,10,00,000/- and did not pay the balance amount. Therefore, the Bank has initiated measures again under the Act and has already taken possession of the property. Now, the petitioners have again filed this petition seeking extension of time for payment of the amount. Even according to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, time was already extended by the Bank earlier and even within the said extended period of time, they did not pay the amount. So, when the petitioners failed to pay the amount within the time stipulated initially and even within the extended period of time, we are not inclined to interfere and grant any more time to the petitioners for payment of the amount.

3. Learned Standing Counsel opposed for grant of any further time, as the petitioners have failed to avail the opportunity given to them earlier.

4. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As it is stated that a representation was made by the petitioners for extension of time, it is left open to the discretion of the respondent-Bank to extend time or not. 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: 07.01.2026 MDP