APHC010685772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.35412 of 2025 Between: 1. PINNINTI MURALI KRISHNA VITAL, S/O SRI PINNINTI NARAYANA RAO, AGED 49 YEARS, DOOR NO.2-238/1, PINNINTIVARI STREET, DOWLAISWARAM, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REP BY ITS GOVERNOR, REGIONAL OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. M/S ICICI BANK LTD, WAS ORIGINALLY PROMOTED BY ICICI LTD IN 1994 AS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT RACE COURSE CIRCLE VADODARA - 390007 AND HAVING BRANCHES AMONG OTHER PLACES AT VIJAYAWADA DISTRICT AND REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY LETTER OF AUTHORITY K.MALLIKHARJUNA RAO S/O SATYANARAYANA KALLA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.35412 of 2025 RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, DOWLAISWARAM POLICE STATION, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, S.R.O, RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM. 6. KARAKAYALA DEEPAK, S/O KARAKAYALA PURUSHOTTAM, AGED 42 YRS, MANAGER OF RANDSTAD INDIA PVT. LTD., R/O 6-3-172, FLAT NO. 102, REDDY APARTMENTS, NEW BHOIGUDA, SECUNDERABAD - 500 003. STATE OF TELANGANA. 7. KARAKAYALA PADMAVATHI, W/O KARAKAYALA PURUSHOTTAM, AGED 58 YRS, R/O 6-3-172; FLAT NO. 102, REDDY APARTMENTS, NEW BHOIGUDA, SECUNDERABAD - 500 003. STATE OF TELANGANA. 8. NUNAVATH YUGANDHAR, S/O NUNAVATH VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/O D.NO.12-7, BISARAJUPALLI, YEDULLACHERUVU VILLAGGE, TIRUMALAYAPALEM MANDAL, KHAMMAM DISTRICT. STATE OF TELANGANA. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. 3. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.35412 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.35412 of 2025 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Heard Mr. P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 are the principal borrowers, who availed loan from the 2nd respondent-bank by offering their immovable property as security for repayment of the loan amount. As they committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the bank has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’), to bring the secured asset for sale for realization of the loan amount. Physical possession of the said property is sought to be taken by way of initiating proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 3. The petitioner is a third party to the said loan transaction. He is neither a principal borrower nor a guarantor. He asserts that he is the absolute owner of the secured asset by virtue of registered settlement deed dated 30.10.2015 executed in his favour by his mother. According to him, he has executed an agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney in favour of respondent No.8 on 07.03.2020 and without paying the total sale consideration, respondent No.8 has sold the said property to the principal borrowers i.e., respondent Nos.6 and 7 by way of registered sale deed dated 03.11.2020. According to him, respondent Nos.6 and 7 have mortgaged the said property to the 2nd respondent-bank as security for the loan availed by them. 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.35412 of 2025 4. Now, on the ground that respondent No.8 cheated the petitioner by entering into the said sale transaction with respondent Nos.6 and 7 and alleging that the petitioner is still in possession of the secured asset and that without giving any notice to him, the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are initiated by the bank, the present writ petition is filed challenging the measures initiated by the 2nd respondent-bank for recovery of the loan amount due from respondent Nos.6 and 7. 5. The petitioner did not produce the registered settlement deed dated 30.10.2015 said to have been executed in his favour, in proof of his title over the secured asset. Even assuming for a moment that he is the owner of the secured asset, as per his own admission, he has executed an agreement to sell-cum-general power of attorney in favour of respondent No.8 in respect of the said property. Respondent No.8, in turn, has admittedly sold the said property to respondent Nos.6 and 7, who are the principal borrowers. So, they became absolute owners of the said property by virtue of the registered sale deed executed by respondent No.8. Therefore, they got every right to mortgage the said property in favour of the 2nd respondent-bank as a security for the loan availed by them. As they committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the bank has initiated measures to bring the said secured asset for sale for realization of the loan amount. So, following the procedure prescribed under law, the bank is now in the process of taking physical possession of the property from the principal borrowers. 6. The petitioner, who is a third party to the said loan transaction and who has already parted with title, if any, in respect of the secured asset, cannot seek to impeach the said measures initiated by the bank even on the ground that respondent No.8 has cheated him by selling the said property to respondent Nos.6 and 7 without paying the entire 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.35412 of 2025 sale consideration to him. If his grievance is relating to the non-payment of entire sale consideration by respondent No.8, his remedy lies elsewhere against respondent No.8 and he has to initiate appropriate proceedings in the appropriate forum for recovery of the sale consideration from respondent No.8. If it is his grievance that respondent No.8 has cheated him, then also the petitioner has to initiate appropriate action according to law against respondent No.8 for committing the alleged offence of cheating. But, he cannot seek to stall the measures initiated by the 2nd respondent-bank for realization of the public money relating to the said loan transaction between the bank and the principal borrowers. So, no notice is required to be given by the bank to the petitioner, who has already parted with his title in respect of the said secured asset. 7. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any valid legal ground to interfere in the matter and to entertain the writ petition. 8. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY ______________________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 22.12.2025 IBL 6 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.35412 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.35412 of 2025 Dt: 22.12.2025 IBL