Dismissed

Matta Ashok v. the Authorized Officer

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Mar 2026WP/6062/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging SARFAESI agricultural sale proceedings dismissed. Court held that ineligible borrowers must approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act instead of invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for redressal of grievance; no order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed.

Matta Ashok Vs the Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3558]

¶2

APHC010112252026

¶3

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

¶4

TUES D AY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH 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: 6062/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

MATTA ASHOK, S / O. LATE M.RAM MOHAN RAO, AG E D 34 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 2/409, DESAIPET, MACHILIPAT N AM, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHR A PRADESH - 521 001,

¶10

GUDURU MANDA L , MRS. KUMPATI PRIYADARSHINI INDIRA, W/O. KOTESWARA RA O , AGED 40 YEARS RESIDENT KANCHA KODURU VILLAGE, KRISHN A DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶11

MRS. JUNUPUDI BHANU,, W/O. RAVINDRA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDEN T OF D.NO. 2/411 DESAIPET, MA C HILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521 001,

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE AUTHORIZE D OFFICER, CANARA BANK, A R M BRANCH, VIJAYAWADA, D.NO. 54-15-4B, GROUND FLO O R, LAKSHMI AVENUE, SRINI V ASA NAGAR, BANK COLONY, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADES

¶15

THE BRANCH M ANAGER, CANARA BANK, M A IN BRANCH, SITUATED AT D.NO. 12-167, VALLURI RA J A CENTRE, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA P R ADESH - 521 001.

¶16

M/S RAMA MOHA N A FLY ASH BRICKS AND CONC R ETE WORKS, REPTD. BY ITS P R OPRIETOR SRI. MATTA AJAY, S/O. LATE M.RAM

¶17

¶18

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.6062 of 2026

¶19

MOHAN RAO, R/O D.NO. 2/409, DESAIPET, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521 001.

¶20

MATTA AJAY, S/O. LATE M.RAM MOHAN RAO, R/O D.NO. 2/409, DESAIPET, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521 001

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

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 or Order or direction more particularly the one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the deeds, things and action of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in pursuance of SARFAESI Proceedings including issuance of notice of Sale dated 12-02-2026 to auction the Property belongs to the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 admeasuring in an extent of 675.59 Sq. meters or 807.99 Sq. yards or 16.69 cents located at Door No. 2/409 in R.S.No.296 at Desaipeta, Machilipatnam, Krishna District as illegal, irregular, unwarranted unfair, unjustified and unconstitutional and consequentially to set aside the said proceedings as illegal and set aside the Order in CrI.M.P.No.137/2024 in C.F.No.225/2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Machilipatnam and also to direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to handover possession of the subject property to the Petitioners 1 to 3 and to pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶24

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 stay all further proceedings in view of the Auction Sale notice dated; 12-022026 for auction of the secured assets under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶26

1.V.V.L.N.PURNESH

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

¶29

¶30

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.6062 of 2026

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

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

¶33

This writ petition is filed challenging the sale notice dated 12.02.2026 issued by the Bank, while initiating measures under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’).

¶34

Heard Mr. V.V.L.N.Purnesh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶35

The petitioners seek to challenge the said sale notice on the ground that the petitioners are not parties to the loan transaction. But, even on that ground they got an efficacious remedy to challenge the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act starts with the expression “any person”, which includes the petitioners, who are aggrieved by the said measures initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act. It is wide enough to include any aggrieved person. Therefore, the petitioners have to avail their remedy by way of filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Tribunal, which is constituted with special mechanism under the special enactment for redressal of such grievances.

¶36

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, seeking redressal of their grievance. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

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

¶38

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶39

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶40

Date: 03.03.2026 MDP

Matta Ashok v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matta Ashok v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathamsetti Naga Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Vs Shriram Finance Limited

Divya Modern Rice Mill Vs the Reserve Bank of India

Mekala Sravani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Veeraraju Gurram Vs the Iifl Home Finance Limited

M/s. Abk Green and Agro Ventures, Vs The Authorised Officer/Chief Manager

Kalavakollu Dhana Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh