Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12517 (AP)

Grandhi K.V.S.S. Subramanyam, v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

WP/7693/2025 · 2025-03-27

Dhiraj Singh Thakur, R Raghunandan Rao

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH j| TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ I PRESENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO ^ WRIT PETITION NO: 7693 OF 2025 - Between; Grandhi K.V.S.S. Subramanyam, S/o. Grandhi Venkata Tatarao, aged 42 years, R/o. 8-19, Market Road, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, Angara, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh - 533 307. ...PETITIONER(Si_ AND Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chola Crest, C 54 and 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. The Authorized Officer/Branch Manager, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited 36-7-14, 2nd Floor, Konduri Square, Konduri Street, Innspeta, Rajahmundry - 533 101. The Advocate Commissioner, (M. Padma), Advocate Advocates Bar Association, Rajamahendravaram District Court Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. Cell No. 9052274359 (Appointed as Advocate Commissioner In Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2025, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram) ...RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the highhanded and arbitrary action of the Respondent Authorities in trying to dispossess the petitioner by taking physical possession of the petitioners Schedule Property, an extent of a) 90.1/3 Sq.Yards of tiled roofed house bearing 1. 2. 3. 2. 3. D.No.6-38 in Block No.6 b) one-half share in 9.5 Sq.Yards of house site in S.N0.215/1A, Old Door No.810, New Door No.848 c) 137 Sq.Yards of R.C.C. Building (Ground and First Floor) bearing Door No.8-10, subsequent New Door No.8-48 in 8th Block in R.S.No.215/1A, all situated at Angara Village, Angara Grama Panchayath, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, Alamuru Sub-D, East Godavari District by issuing the impugned Advocate Commissioners Notice Memo dated 07.01.2025, scheduled to dispossess the petitioner on 07.02.2025 without following the mandatory procedure established in SARFAESI Act and without giving any kind of prior notice, as illegal, unwarranted, unsustainable, arbitrary, unconstitutional, in violation of principles of natural justice as well as in violation of provisions enshrined in the SARFAESI Act and consequently set aside the same by directing the Respondent Authorities not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in respect to dispossessing the petitioner from his said schedule property without following due process of law.-- lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned Advocate Commissioners Notice Memo dated 07.01.2025 pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D. TARAKA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER Bench Sr.No:-17 [3446] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI APHC010147392025 Hi? WRIT PETITION NO; 7693 of 2025 ...Petitioner Grandhi K. V. S. S. Subramanyam Vs. ...Respondents Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited and others ********** Mr. D. Taraka Prasad Advocate for Petitioner Advocate for Respondents CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 27th March 2025 PC : In view of the fact that there is an efficacious alternate remedy available to the petitioner in terms of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and considering the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon\ we are not inclined to extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution exercise our of India. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, are dosed. (2010) 8 see 110 Sdl- M.RAIMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. OneCCto Sri D. Taraka Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT CNR DATED:27/03/2025 ORDER x” 0 2 WTi I ^ gurreni section ^Sta^eSPATCVV^-^ WP.No.7693 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS