Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15474 (AP)

Sri PALNATI NARENDRA KUMAR v. HINDUJA LEYLAND FINANCE LTD

WP/2184/2026 · 2026-01-27

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, Tuhin Kumar Gedela

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010035672026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.2184 of 2026 Between: 1. SRI PALNATI NARENDRA KUMAR, S/O VENKATA APPA RAO, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 1-220, PETERU, REPALLE, GUNTUR - 522 265, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. HINDUJA LEYLAND FINANCE LTD, REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 27A, DEVELOPED INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GUINDY, CHENNAI 600032. 2. HINDUJA LEYLAND FINANCE LTD, REP BY ITS THE BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE AT VIJAYAWADA BRANCH SITUATED AT D No. 54-20-10/A, 0PP. TO SBI BANK, GURUNANAK COLONY, MAIN ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-520008. 3. M/S SRI ANJANEYA FAST FOOD, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, RAMALAYAM STREET, PAIDURUPADU, VIJAYAWADA - 521 241, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 CMR, J & GTK, J W.P.No.2184 of 2026 1. SASI KANTH BUSI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VARAPRASAD NEPPALI A. VENKATA DURGA RAO The Court made the following: 3 CMR, J & GTK, J W.P.No.2184 of 2026 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.2184 of 2026 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Heard Mr. Sasi Kanth Busi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A. Venkata Durga Rao, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Since this writ petition is being disposed of as not maintainable, notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with. 3. The petitioner is the co-applicant and guarantor for the loan availed by respondent No.3 from the 1st respondent - financial institution and he has mortgaged his immovable property as security for repayment of the loan amount. On account of the default committed in repayment of the said loan amount, the 1st respondent- financial institution has initiated measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’) to take possession of the secured asset and to sell the said property in the public auction. 4. Challenging the said measures initiated by the respondent financial institution in making an attempt to take possession of the secured asset, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent financial institution not to take physical possession of the secured asset and also to consider his representation to clear the outstanding amount due by selling the secured asset. 4 CMR, J & GTK, J W.P.No.2184 of 2026 5. At the time of hearing the writ petition, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, on instructions, submits that the possession of the secured asset was already taken by the financial institution yesterday i.e., on 27.01.2026. 6. Therefore, when possession of the secured asset was already taken, the question of directing the financial institution not to take possession of the secured asset, as sought for in the writ petition, does not arise. Further, when the property of the petitioner is under mortgage as secured asset, no permission can be accorded to the petitioner to sell the said property, which is under encumbrance. Therefore, we do not see any valid legal ground to entertain the writ petition. 7. If it is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent financial institution has not fixed the upset price appropriately while selling the secured asset in the public auction, then the petitioner can challenge the same on the legal grounds available to him on that ground. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observation. 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 TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 28.01.2026 IBL 5 CMR, J & GTK, J W.P.No.2184 of 2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.2184 of 2026 Dt: 28.01.2026 IBL