M/s. Reddy Raw Rice Mill Vs the Canara Bank

THE CANARA BANK, SPECIALIZED ASSETS RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT BRANCH (SPECIALIZED ARM BRANCH), 7 ROADS CIRCLE, CANARA BANK BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, KADAPA - 516 002., REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶14

THE CANARA BANK, KAVALI-1 BRANCH, KAVALI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524 201.

¶15

THE CANARA BANK, SPECIALIZED ASSET RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT BRANCH (SPECIALIZED ARM BRANCH), KVC ARCADE, 3RD FLOOR, 13-1, RC ROAD, VANI NAGAR, AVILALA, TIRUPATI - 517 501, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶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 topleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to auction the mortgaged properties on 10.03.2026 pursuant to the notice issued to the

¶18

2

¶19

petitioner dated 17.02.2026 as illegal, arbitrary, mala-fide and in violation of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and consequently set aside the auction notice dated 17.02.2026 indicating the proposed auction date as 10.03.2026 and 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 pleased to stay the auction scheduled to be conducted on 10.03.2026 by the respondent herein in pursuance of auction notice issued to the petitioner dated 17.02.2026 issued by the respondent bank, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.G SRAVAN KUMAR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

¶26

3

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

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

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶30

Owing to the fact that the petitioner as a borrower committed default in repayment of the loan amount to the respondent-bank, the bank has initiated measures under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short, ‘the Act’) and took possession of the secured asset. Challenging the said act of taking possession of the secured asset, the petitioner has filed S.A.No.445 of 2023 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. While it is pending adjudication, the bank has issued sale notice to sell the secured asset. So the petitioner has filed a petition seeking amendment of the prayer. Alleging that the application seeking amendment was posted beyond the date of sale, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition before this Court.

¶31

Even to challenge the sale notice, the petitioner got efficacious remedy by way of filing an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal which is an appropriate forum to adjudicate the said lis under the Act. Therefore, we are not inclined to enter into the Writ Petition.

¶32

So, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Writ Petitioner to pursue his remedy before the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall consider the amendment application and also other Interlocutory applications

¶33

4

¶34

expeditiously and pass appropriate orders on merits, according to law. 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: 09.03.2026 TM

M/s. Reddy Raw Rice Mill v. the Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Reddy Raw Rice Mill v. the Canara Bank

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

Turlapati Peddabbai Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Matta Ashok Vs the Authorized Officer

Romala Srinivasa Rao Vs Asset Recovery Branch

M/s Leela Amrutha Cottons Vs the Union Bank of India

Gudapati Seshagiri Rao Vs the Union of India

Sayed Shmin Hussain Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh