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) 562

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY,Tuhin Kumar Gedela
N SUNITHA – Appellant
Versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
WP 35754/2025



APHC010698292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3558]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 35754/2025 Between:

1. N SUNITHA, W/O.N.KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHI D.NO.50-119-1/5, FLAT NO.302, ROYAL HEIGHTS SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530013 ...PETITIONER AND

1. U NION BANK OF INDIA, ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTTHORISED OFFICER, D.NO.26-15-150, ANDHRA BANK BUILDING, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530013 2

2. U NION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH HEAD, ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, D.NO.26-15-150, ANDHRA BANK BUILDING, CHANGALRAOPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530001 ...RESPONDENT(S):

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 toleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the Respondent Bank in issuing email Dt.16/ 12/2025 proposing to forfeit the amount of Rs.27,18,000 (Twenty-Seven Lakhs Eighteen Thousand only) which is 25PERCENT of the bid amount paid by the petitioner in case she fails to pay the remaining 75PERCENT of the bid amount on or before 24-12-2025 and conducting the auction even without being in possession of the property as arbitrary, illegal and set aside the same and direct the respondent bank to handover physical possession to the petitioner and receive balance sale consideration, issue sale certificate and register the same or in the alternative direct the respondent bank to refund the amount of Rs.27,18,000 (Twenty-Seven Lakhs Eighteen Thousand only) which is 25PERCENT of the bid amount collected from the petitioner towards sale of Residential Land and Building comprising of 299.41 Square Meters located at T.S.No.B/15/17, Block -15 in R.S.No.l/10, C.S.No.142 Pt, 143Pt, D.No.8-1-73, Plot No.78 79 Zicrianagar, Mainroad, Yanam with 24PERCENT interest and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the Respondent Bank not to forfeit the amount of Rs.27,18,000 (Twenty-Seven Lakhs Eighteen Thousand only) which is 25%

of the bid amount paid by the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M BALANAGA SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. V DYUMANI The Court made the following:

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

Heard Sri Balanaga Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank.

2. The petitioner is the auction purchaser who purchased the secured asset in the auction held on 26.09.2025. After she was declared as highest bidder, she has paid the entire sale consideration payable to the Bank.

Sale certificate was also issued in her favour.

3. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that possession of the secured asset is not delivered to her even after payment of the entire sale consideration and issuance of the sale certificate in her favour by the Bank. Therefore, the instant Writ Petition has been filed by the writ petitioner seeking direction to the Bank to register sale certificate and to deliver possession of the secured asset to her and alternatively she claimed for refund of the sale consideration to her.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank would submit that as an interim order was passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.27112 of 2025 in a Writ Petition filed by one of the guarantors, directing the Bank not to disturb the possession of the guarantor in respect of the secured asset that the Bank could not deliver the possession of the property to the petitioner, who is the auction purchaser. She would submit that as the said Writ Petition is dismissed today for non

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