Disposed¶31

M/s Leela Amrutha Cottons v. the Union Bank of India

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Mar 2026WP/6134/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; W.P. No. 6134 of 2026; Leela Amrutha Cottons and Madana Venkatappa Reddy v. Union Bank of India and DRT Visakhapatnam; SARFAESI Act 2002; maintainability of writ petition; parallel proceedings bar; secured asset possession and auction; sale notice Ref-ARB VIJ SALE 1371 2025-26 dated 09.02.2026; S.A.No.194 of 2025 and pending IAs before DRT; writ petition disposed; direction to Tribunal for expeditious disposal of interlocutory applications; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioners directed to pursue their remedy before the DRT where their applications are pending; Tribunal directed to consider the interlocutory applications and pass appropriate orders expeditiously; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed. ¶31

M/s Leela Amrutha Cottons Vs the Union Bank of… — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 seeking to restrain the bank from taking possession of the secured asset and conducting auction, pending decision of the interlocutory applications in S.A.No.194 of 2025 before the DRT, is maintainable when the petitioners have already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal challenging the same measures.

¶30

Court's answer

Since the petitioners have already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal by an appropriate application challenging the bank's measures under the Act, they cannot maintain parallel proceedings before the High Court by way of a writ petition during the pendency of the Securitization Application; the Court is not inclined to interfere or entertain the writ petition.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal is directed to consider the pending interlocutory applications and pass appropriate orders expeditiously in view of the urgency urged; no order as to costs.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SARFAESI — Writ petition under Article 226 seeking restraint on the bank from taking physical possession of the secured asset and conducting auction under sale notice dated 09.02.2026, pending disposal of I.A.Nos.1172, 2009, 2894, 3192 and 4136 of 2025 in S.A.No.194 of 2025 before the DRT, Visakhapatnam — Held, not maintainable: the petitioners having already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal challenging the bank's measures, they cannot maintain parallel proceedings before the High Court during the pendency of the Securitization Application — Writ petition disposed of with direction to petitioners to pursue their remedy before the Tribunal; Tribunal to consider the interlocutory applications and pass appropriate orders expeditiously in view of the urgency urged — No order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

APHC010112042026

¶3

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

¶4

[3558]

¶5

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

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

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 6134/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/S LEELA AMRUTHA COTTONS, REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI MADANA VENKATAPPA REDDY, S/O. ANKI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.4-2-68, KORETIPADU, CHAITANYAPURI, 2ND LANE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶11

MADANA VENKATAPPA REDDY,, S/O. ANKI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.4-2-68, KORETIPADU, CHAITANYAPURI, 2ND LANE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ASSET RECOVERY OFFICER, 4TH FLOOR, ANDHRA BANK BUILDING RR APPARAO STREET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, 31-3254, CHITRALAYA ROAD, NEAR LEELAMAHAL ROAD, DABA GARDENS, JAGADAMBA JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNARN, ANDHRA PRADESH -530 020

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 of or any Appropriate Writ by direction to the 2^nd

¶18

¶19

Respondent to decide I.A.Nos.1172 of 2025, 2009 of 2025, 2894 of 2025, 3192 of 2025, 4136 of 2025 in S.A.No.194 of 2025 pending the action of the 1st Respondent Bank in making attempts to take over the Possession and conducting of auction in terms of sale notice vid Ref-ARB VIJ SALE 1371 2025-26, dated 09.02.2026 of Schedule property i.e., Residential House situated at D.No. 189/A of Koretipadu bearing Door No.4-2-68, 2^nd Lane , Chaitanyapuri, Guntur, Guntur District., is illegal, contrary to Principles of Natural Justice, consequently to direct the 1st Respondent not to take Possession of the aforementioned property, till I.A.No s.1172 of 2025, 2009 of 2025, 2894 of 2025, 3192 of 2025, 4136 of 2025 in S.A.No.194 of 2025 before the Honble DRT, Visakhapatnam are decided, and to pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

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 1st Respondent Bank not to take Physical Possession and not to proceed with the auction in in terms of sale notice vide Ref-ARB:VIJ;SALE; 1371:2025-26, dated 09.02.2026 of the Schedule property i.e.. Residential House situated at D.No. 189/A of Koretipadu bearing Door No.4-2-68, 2^nd Lane Chaitanyapuri, Guntur, Guntur District., till the I.A.No’s.1172 of 2025, 2009 of 2025, 2894 of 2025, 3192 of 2025, 4136 of 2025 in S.A.No.194 of 2025 before the Hon’ble DRT, Visakhapatnam are decided and to pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶23

1.S DILIP JAYA RAM

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

¶26

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

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

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶30

In view of the default committed by the petitioners who are the principal borrowers in repayment of the loan amount, the respondent-bank has initiated measures under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short, ‘the Act’). The petitioners have already approached Debt Recovery Tribunal challenging the said measures by way of filing S.A.No.194 of 2025 and also seeking interim reliefs by way of filing various interlocutory applications. Challenging the attempt made by the bank to take possession of the secured asset in terms of the sale notice that was issued the instant petition has been filed. As the petitioners have already approached Debt Recovery Tribunal by way of filing an appropriate application challenging the said proceedings, they cannot maintain parallel proceedings before this Court by way of fIling the Writ Petition during the pendency of the said Securitization Application. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and to entertain the Writ Petition.

¶31

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the Tribunal where their applications are pending. The Tribunal shall consider the interlocutory applications and pass appropriate orders expeditiously in view of the urgency that is urged by the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

closed.

¶35

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶36

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶37

Date: 09.03.2026 TM