APHC010026772026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT PETITION NO: 2158/2026 Between: 1. MATHAMSETTI NAGA VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA,, S/O. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, AGED 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 10 RANGREEZPETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. MATHAMSETTI MADHAVI,, W/O. MNW SATYANARAYANA, AGED YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 10 RANGREEZPETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. MATHAMSETTI LAKSHMI,, YEARS, RIO. D.NO. 10 RANGREEZPETA, GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED, AUTHORIZED OFFICER, D.NO.6 5/1, 2ND FLOOR, ORUGANTIVAR KOTIPALLI BUS STAND, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED, D. NO. 6 12-5/1, 2ND FLOOR, ORUGANTIVARI STREET, INNISPETA, OPP. KOTIPALLI BUS STAND, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 2158/2026 MATHAMSETTI NAGA VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA,, S/O. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, AGED 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 10-7-5/1, DASARI VAN I STREET, RANGREEZPETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM-533 1 GODAVARI DISTRICT. MATHAMSETTI MADHAVI,, W/O. MNW SATYANARAYANA, AGED YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 10-7-5/1, DASARI VAN I STREET, RANGREEZPETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM-533 105, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. MATHAMSETTI LAKSHMI,, W/O. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, AGED YEARS, RIO. D.NO. 10-7-5/1, DASARI VAN I STREET, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM-533 105, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED, AUTHORIZED OFFICER, D.NO.6 5/1, 2ND FLOOR, ORUGANTIVARI STREET, INNISPETA, OPP. KOTIPALLI BUS STAND, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM-533 101. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED, D. NO. 6 5/1, 2ND FLOOR, ORUGANTIVARI STREET, INNISPETA, OPP. KOTIPALLI BUS STAND, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM-533 101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3558] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MATHAMSETTI NAGA VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA,, S/O. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, AGED 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION 5/1, DASARI VAN I STREET, 533 105 EAST MATHAMSETTI MADHAVI,, W/O. MNW SATYANARAYANA, AGED 5/1, DASARI VAN I STREET, 533 105, EAST W/O. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, AGED 5/1, DASARI VAN I STREET, 533 105, EAST ...PETITIONER(S) SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED, AUTHORIZED OFFICER, D.NO.6-12- I STREET, INNISPETA, OPP. 533 101. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED, D. NO. 6- 5/1, 2ND FLOOR, ORUGANTIVARI STREET, INNISPETA, OPP. 533 101 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.2158 of 2026 ...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 to issue a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus to i) Declare the action of Respondent No. 1 in issuing the Possession Notice dated 29.12.2025 and the Demand Notice dated 26.09.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Section 26D of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. ii) Set aside the Possession Notice dated 29.12.2025 pertaining to the Schedule Properties situated in R.S.No.162/1A, Rajanagaram Village. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the Possession Notice dated 29.12.2025 issued under Section 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MALLAVOLU NIKITHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. O UDAYA KUMAR 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.2158 of 2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed challenging the possession notice dated 29.12.2025 that was issued and the demand notice dated 26.09.2025 that was issued, under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’), by the principal borrower and the guarantors. 2. Heard Ms. Mallavolu Nikitha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. O.Udaya Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2- financial institution. 3. The 1st petitioner is the principal borrower, who availed loan from the 1st respondent-financial institution. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors and they offered their immovable property as security for repayment of the loan amount. As the principal borrower committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the 1st respondent-financial institution initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act and issued possession notice and demand notice, which are impugned in this writ petition. The petitioners mainly challenged the legal validity of the said measures initiated by the 1st respondent-financial institution under the SARFAESI Act on the ground that the secured asset was not registered with the Central Registry of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India, as required under Section 26B of the SARFAESI Act and in view of the bar engrafted under Section 26D of the SARFAESI Act that the 1st respondent-financial institution cannot initiate any measures under the SARFAESI Act. 4. When the matter came up for admission, considering the copy of the Asset Based Search Report produced by the petitioners, which is made available at page No.25 of the writ papers, this Court, on 04.02.2026, while granting time to the respondents to file counter affidavit, granted interim stay 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.2158 of 2026 of further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 29.12.2025 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. 5. A copy of the Registration of Security Interest Acknowledgment Report was filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents into the Court and a copy of the same was also furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioners. As per the aforesaid report, the secured asset was registered with the Central Registry of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India in compliance with Section 26B of the SARFAESI Act. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the secured asset was registered with wrong PAN number and with wrong name of the borrower. 6. We have carefully scrutinized the aforesaid report filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-financial institution. The name of the borrower is correctly mentioned in the said report. Though, the PAN number was wrongly mentioned, according to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it was due to typographical mistake and he has produced a copy of the PAN of the borrower before the Court today. It shows that it was registered with PAN No.BFGPM3770Q. The other details are fully tallying with the details mentioned in the above report filed by learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Therefore, it is now evident that the secured asset has been registered with the Central Registry of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India. Therefore, the bar engrafted under Section 26D of the SARFAESI Act will not apply. So, we do not find any valid legal ground to entertain the writ petition and to stall the further proceedings of the financial institution. 7. Though, we are of the view that the writ petition has to be dismissed with costs, as the petitioners have obtained interim order on a false ground that the secured asset was not registered with the Central Registry of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India, as the 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.2158 of 2026 learned counsel for the petitioners satisfied the Court that they are under the impression that it was not registered with Central Registry of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India, as the PAN number is not correctly shown in the report obtained by them, we refrain from imposing costs. 8. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 02.03.2026 MDP