Dismissed¶36

Challa Sriramachandra Murthy v. Indian Bank

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Jun 2026WP/2492/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challa Sriramachandra Murthy & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr., Writ Petition No. 2492/2026, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, order dated 16.06.2026 (Battu Devanand & A. Hari Haranadha Sarma JJ.): writ petition challenging a Section 13(2) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act demand notice dated 20.11.2025 (grounded on the Section 26D bar) dismissed as withdrawn with no costs after counsel sought leave owing to subsequent developments; merits left undecided; no precedent value on the legality of the notice.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed. ¶36

Challa Sriramachandra Murthy Vs Indian Bank — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the writ petition; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the Demand Notice dated 20.11.2025 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act by the 2nd respondent Authorized Officer/Bank is illegal and without jurisdiction in view of the bar under Section 26D of that Act, and whether the notice and all consequential proceedings ought to be set aside. (Raised in the prayer; not framed or decided by the Court as the petition was withdrawn.)

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Permission granted to the petitioners' learned counsel to withdraw the writ petition in view of subsequent developments during its pendency.

¶35

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.ratio¶36
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 2492 of 2026, decided 16.06.2026 (Battu Devanand & A. Hari Haranadha Sarma JJ.; order per Battu Devanand J.). Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Challa Sriramachandra Murthy and another against Indian Bank and its Branch Manager/Authorized Officer, Bhaskarnagar Branch, Kakinada, seeking a declaration that the Demand Notice dated 20.11.2025 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act is illegal and without jurisdiction in view of the bar under Section 26D, and setting aside of the notice and all consequential proceedings; IA No. 1 of 2026 under Section 151 CPC sought interim stay. Before any adjudication, learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the writ petition in view of subsequent developments during pendency; permission was granted; the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed. The challenge to the demand notice was not adjudicated on merits.

¶1

¶2

APHC010040412026

¶3

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

¶4

[3545]

¶5

TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 2492/2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

CHALLA SRIRAMACHANDRA MURTHY, S/O. NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 4-204,KAPULARAMALAYAM VEEDHI NEAR KAPULA RAMALAYAM, PATAVALA, THALLAREVU MANDAL533 461, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

¶12

CHALLA SOMA SITA VEERALAKSHMI, W/O. CHALLASRIRAMACHANDRA MURTHY, AGED 36 YEARS R/O. D.NO. 4-204,KAPULARAMALAYAMVEEDHI, NEAR KAPULA RAMALAYAM, PATAVALA, THALLAREVU MANDAL-533 461, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

INDIAN BANK, PB NO. 5555, 254-260, AVVAI SHANMUGAM SALAI, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI-600 014.

¶16

THE BRANCH MANAGER/AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK, BHASKARNAGAR BRANCH, KAKINADA.-533003.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

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 Enforcement of Security Interest Act ii)To 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) 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 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

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶24

1.MALLAVOLU NIKITHA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.SREEDHAR VALIVETI

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

¶29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶30

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO. 2492 of 2026

¶33

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

¶34

Ms Mallavolu Nikitha, learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition in view of the subsequent developments happened during pendency of this Writ Petition.

¶35

2. Permission is granted.

¶36