SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 79

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY,Tuhin Kumar Gedela
Dabbugottu Srinivasulu – Appellant
Versus
Union Bank of India – Respondent
WP 2408/2026



##PAGE1##

1

2026:APHC:1922

APHC010038932026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3558]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

WRIT PETITION NO: 2408/2026

Between:

1. D ABBUGOTTU SRINIVASULU,, S/O. D.CHINA KONDAIAH. AGED

ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 15-6-115, FLAT NO.202,BALAJI

RESIDENCY, VENKATARAMAPURAM, SPSR NELLORE-524

004,ANDHRA PRADESH

...PETITIONER

AND

1. U NION BANK OF INDIA, Dargamitta Branch-3, Dargamitta, Near

Rainbow Theatre, Grand Trunk Road, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra

Pradesh - 524003.

...RESPONDENT

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 an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in

the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent bank in

publishing auction notice on 11.01.2026, fixing auction date to be held on

28.01.2026, without serving sale notice to me and without affixing the same

on subject property which is required under proviso to Rule 9 (1) of

Secularization Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, and inaction of Debt

Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in considering the Interlocutory

Applications I.A.Nos.394, 395, 396 and 397 of 2026 in S.A.No.351 of 2025,

particularly in view of the imminent threat of creation of third-party interests

##PAGE2##

2

2026:APHC:1922

through illegal auction as arbitrary, illegal, violative of provisions of the

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), violative of Securitization Interest

(Enforcement) Rules, 2002, devoid of principles of natural justice and

unconstitutional, and consequently direct the respondent not to conduct

auction or issue sale certificate for the auction to be held on 28.01.2026, until

the disposal of I.A.Nos.394, 395, 396 and 397 of 2026 in S.A.No.351 of 2025,

by DRT, Visakhapatnam

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 of all further proceedings pursuant to the publication of

auction notice dated 28.01.2026, , pending disposal of the Writ Petition

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. VINOD KUMAR PEMMASANI

Counsel for the Respondent:

1.

##PAGE3##

3

2026:APHC:1922

The Court made the following:

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

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the principal borrower. He has filed the writ petition

for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent-bank in publishing

auction notice dated 11.01.2026 fixing the date of auction on 28.01.2026

without serving sale notice on the petitioner and without affixing the same on

the subject property as required under proviso Rule 9(1) of the Security

Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and the inaction on the part of the Debts

Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in considering the interlocutory

applications in I.A.Nos.394 to 397 of 2026 in S.A.No.351 of 2025 in view of the

imminent threat of creating a third party interest in respect of the secured

interest as illegal and violative of provisions of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) and consequently sought direction to the

respondent not to conduct auction or issue sale certificate for the auction to be

held on 28.01.2026 till the disposal of the aforesaid interlocutory applications.

3. The petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal,

Visakhapatnam, which is the appropriate forum constituted under the special

enactment with special mechanism challenging the measures initiated by the

respondent-bank for realization of the loan amount. Therefore, as the

petitioner has already approached the appropriat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top