APHC010635112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3418] MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO WRIT PETITION No.33772 of 2025 Between: 1. TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, A NATIONAL BANKING HOUSE INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER M. RAJESH, S/O. SIVA SANKAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT 11TH FLOOR, TOWER A, PENINSULA BUSINESS PARK, GANPATRAO KADAM MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400013 AND ONE OF THE BRANCH OFFICE IS AT 5TH FLOOR, RK GALLERIA, SRINIVASA BANK COLONY, SERVICE ROAD, VIJAYAWADA- 520008. ...PETITIONER AND 1. VINJAMURI PRABHUDAS, S/O.VINJAMURI RAMA SUBBARAO, D.NO.8-226, BARGAVPETA, NEAR BAPTIST CHURCH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR-522503, ALSO AT C/O. DURGA BHAVANI MEDICAL AND FANCY STORE, D.NO.3- 284/1, NEAR WATERTANK, NOWLURU VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522503. 2 CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.33772 of 2025 2. VINJAMURI SIRISHA, W/O. VINJAMURI PRABHUDAS, D.NO.8-226, BARGAVPETA, NEAR BAPTIST CHURCH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR-522503 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VARAPRASAD NEPPALI Counsel for the Respondent(s): 1. The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.33772 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO WRIT PETITION No.33772 of 2025 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Since we are disposing of this writ petition considering the objection taken by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur, for registering the application filed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, „the SARFAESI Act‟), notice to the respondents, who are only formal parties, is dispensed with. 3. The petitioner is a financial institution. It has sanctioned loan to respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the principal borrower and co-borrower respectively. On the ground that they have committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the petitioner-financial institution has initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act. It has filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, 4 CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.33772 of 2025 Guntur, to appoint an advocate commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. 4. At the time of registering the said application, the office of the said Court has taken an objection that the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds relating to the said loan transaction was not filed. Therefore, on 09.04.2025, it has returned the said application to the petitioner to file the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds. Thereafter, the petitioner has re-presented the said application stating that “Objection complied. Cersai report is herewith filed”. But, the said application was again returned stating that the previous objection dated 09.04.2025 was not complied with. 5. Therefore, aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed questioning the return of the application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds executed at the time of sanctioning the loan and only on the basis of deposit of original title deeds, the loan was sanctioned. So, he submits that as no Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds was executed or it is in existence at any point of time, the question of producing the same does not arise. 5 CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.33772 of 2025 7. However, the petitioner, while re-presenting the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, did not answer the objection in specific terms clearly stating that no such Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds was executed and that it was never in existence and that the loan was sanctioned only on the basis of deposit of title deeds. So, as the objection was not properly answered, the office of the Court could not consider the same. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to answer the objection properly by clearly stating that no Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds was executed and it was not in existence and also by explaining that the loan was sanctioned only on the basis of deposit of original title deeds. If the petitioner answers the objection clearly in specific terms as detailed supra, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur, shall consider the same and register the application filed by the petitioner, if it is otherwise in order. 9. Registry is directed to return the original application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act filed along with the material papers of this writ petition to the petitioner to enable it to present the same before the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. 6 CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.33772 of 2025 As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 08.12.2025 IBL 7 CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.33772 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO WRIT PETITION No.33772 of 2025 Dt: 08.12.2025 IBL