IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) I FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29934 OF 2024 Between: Mohammad Liakhat Ali, Mohammad Liakhat Ali, S/o Md. Abdul vaheb, Age 50 Years, R/o D.No. 1-3/28-14D, Near Bharath Gas, Yaddanpudi vari street, Vidhyadharapuram, Vijayawada, A.P ...PETITIONER AND 1. Gandhi Co Operative Urban Bank Limited, ,museum road Govemorpeta, Vijayawada, Rep. by its Authorized officer Bokka Venkata Krishna, R/o Vijayawada 2. S.K Ameena, Advocate Commissioner Vijayawada ...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 a writ or writs more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.I proceedings in CrI.M.P No. 1653/2024 and warrant dated on 29.11.2024 and issuing the notices under sections 13(2) and 13(4) under the SARFESI Act, 2002 due to pendency of E.P and Appeal Respondnt Banks issued notices with out >^.r giving any opportunity the Respondent bank taking steps is illegal, arbitratory high handed and Consequently Set aside the Warrant dated 29.11.2024 Passed in CrI.M.P No. 1653/2024 on the File of Chief Judicial court Vijayawada and notices issued U Sec 13(2) and 13(4) dated 15.05.2023 and05.12.2023 Respondent bank cant forum shopping the action of the Respondent bank is violation of Article 19,21 and 300A Constitution of India. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 stay all further proceedings in CrI. MP. No. 1653/2024 on the file of Chief Judicial Court Vijayawada issued by the Respondent Bank pending disposal of the above said Writ Petition in the Interest of Justice lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 Respondent No.1 not to take any steps and further proceedings on the issued notices of 13(2) and 13(4) under SARFESI Act, 2002 and in CrI. M.P. No. 1653/2024 on the file of Chief Judicial Court Vijayawada and not take any steps by the Respondent Bank in the above said Writ Petition in the interest of Justice Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI SRINIVASA KANNAMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: — The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010553132024 Bench Sr.No:-4 [3483] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SJflH WRIT PETITION NO: 29934 of 2024 Mohammad Liakhat Ali ...Petitioner Vs. Gandhi Co-operative Urban Bank Limited and another ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner Mr. Satyanarayana Nimmala representing Mr. Srinivasa Kannama Reddy Advocate for Respondents CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI : January, 2025 DATE PC : The petitioner has challenged the action initiated by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, primarily on the ground that an Award has already been passed in terms of Section 62(4) read with Section 61 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, and that the amount which is sought to be realized and reflected in the notice under Section 13(2) was different from the amount which is mentioned in the Award. 2. It is stated that the Award amount is Rs.35,18,807/- whereas the amount which is sought to be recovered and is reflected in the 13(2) notice is approximately Rs.80.00 lakhs. 2 HCJ & RC,J WP 29934 2024 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy us as to how the respondent Bank was under an obligation to recover only the amount which is reflected in the Award which was passed as early as in the year 2018 without the same having been realized. Obviously, the respondent Bank would be entitled to claim interest that has accrued on the principal amount over the years especially for the years following 2018 when the Award was passed. In any case, learned counsel has failed to satisfy us on whether there was any prohibition on the respondent Bank to take resort to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act in case the amount remained yet to be realized. 4. 5. Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in the present Writ Petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy under the SARFAESI Act. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- U SRI DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /%ECT^N OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Kannama Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Three CD Copies AL f HIGH COURT DATED:03/01/2025 ORDER AND^ WP.No.29934 of 2024 ^ 2 9 JAN 2C25 ^ . Current Section . ^1 C9 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS