Dismissed¶35

Prasanth Pedapati v. the Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Jan 2026WP/145/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act 2002 measures challenged in writ petition; Article 226 jurisdiction declined for want of approaching Debts Recovery Tribunal; alternative remedy doctrine; writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach DRT; secured asset G1 building RS No. 208/9 Gudapalli Village; possession and sale without sale notice alleged; Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company; Union of India respondent; status quo interim application closed; W.P.No.145 of 2026; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; decision dated 06.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking redressal of their grievance; no order as to costs; interlocutory applications pending, if any, stand closed. ¶35

Prasanth Pedapati Vs the Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3558]

¶2

APHC010723432025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESD A Y, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TW O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 145/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

PRASANTH PEDA P ATI, S/O PRAKASAM, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O D.NO 3-701, GUDAPALLI, KOLLA V A NI CENTER, MALAIKIPURAM, E AST FODAVARI DISTRICT PRES E NTLY DR. B.R AMBEDKAR KON A SEEMA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-533244.

¶10

NAVYA PEDAPATI , W/O PRASANTH, AGED ABOUT 2 8 YEARS, R/O D.NO 3-701, GUD A PALLI, KOLLA VARI CENTER, M A LAIKIPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT PRESENTLY DR. B. R AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DIS T RICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-533244.

¶11

PRASANTH EARTH MOVERS, REP. BY ITS OWNER PRASANTH PEDAPAJ, R/O D.NO 3-701, GUDAPALLI, KOLLA V A N I CENTER, MALAIKIPURAM, E AST GODAVARI DISTRICT PRES E NTLY DR. B.R AMBEDKAR KON A SEEMA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-533244.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE UNION OF IN D IA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DE P ARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERV I CES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, J EEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANA D MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶15

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINAN C E COMPANY, PRAKASH NAGA R , RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, REP. BY ITS G.P.A HOLDER, CHINT A SRINIVAS, S/O VENKATA RAM A NA, SENIOR CHIEF-MANAGER, VIJAYAWADA, AGED 45 Y EARS, O/O CHOLAMANDALM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE C O MPANY PVT.

¶16

¶17

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.145 of 2026

¶18

LTD, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, R/O PRAKASH NAGAR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM WITHIN PRAKASH NAGAR P.S LIMITS.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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 WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of 2nd Respondent already taken the possession of the secured Asset i.e G 1 building, RS No. 208/9 situated in Gudapalli Village and Gram Panchayat, Makilipuram Mandal, Razolu SRO, Dr. BR Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh as per the orders of and the action of 2R1 Respondent in making attempts to sell the Petitioners secured property i.e G 1 building, RS No. 208/9 situated in Gudapalli Village and Gram Panchayat, Makilipuram Mandal, Razolu SRO, D.r .B.R Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh without following the due process of law and even without issuing the sale notice to the petitioner as illegal, irregular, irrational and against principles of natural justice, violative of provision of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and Rules framed thereunder and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to follow the due process of law and also not to sale the petitioners Secured Asset and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶22

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 Respondents to maintain the status quo with regard to the petitioners Secured Asset i.e G1 building, RS No. 208/9 situated in Gudapalli Village and Gram Panchayat, Makilipuram Mandal, Razolu SRO, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶24

1.NARESH BABU YERICHERLA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

¶27

¶28

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.145 of 2026

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶32

Challenging the measures initiated by the respondent No.2-financial institution under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’), for realization of the loan amount by bringing the secured asset for sale, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition.

¶33

The petitioners have got an efficacious remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which is the appropriate forum constituted under the special enactment for redressal of such grievances. But, without approaching the Tribunal, the petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has time and again deprecated the said practice of entertaining writ petitions when the petitioners got remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal which is constituted for the said purpose. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and to entertain the writ petition.

¶34

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking redressal of their grievance. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶37

JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶38

Date: 06.01.2026 MDP

Prasanth Pedapati v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanth Pedapati v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Vindhya Dronamraju, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation

Mahys Pharmaceuticals Vs the Union of India

Modem Aruna @ Vallam Aruna Vs Reserve Bank of India

Yanga Sree Usirkayala Vs the State of Ap

Sigilipelli Venkataramana Vs the Union of India

Subhan Krafts Paper (P) Ltd. Vs the Authorized Officer