APHC010702142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE WRIT PETITION NO: 35995/2025 Between: 1. SRI PRABHA LIFE SCIENCES, REP. BY L. KRISHNA CHAITANYA MANAGING PARTNER, APIIC GROWTH CENTER PLOT NO 422, S NO 435 437 437 ANNAGI VILLAGE MASDDIPADU MANDAL PRAKASHAM DISTRICT, A.P 2. L. PRABHAVATI, W/O. L. KRISHNA CHAITANYA, AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC BUSINESS R/O. H NO 1 MANSOORABAD, LB NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 3. . L. KRISHNA CHAITANYA, S/O. L. RANGA RAO, AGE 53 YEARS OCC BUSINESS R/O. H NO 1 MANSOORABAD, LB NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, Union Bank of India, Ongole Main Branch-2337-1350 Trunk Road, Ongole Petition under Article 226 of circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the deliberate action of the Res execute the order in CRL.MP NO. 70 of 2025 dated 21 The Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Principal Senior Civil Judge despite the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 35995/2025 SRI PRABHA LIFE SCIENCES, REP. BY L. KRISHNA CHAITANYA MANAGING PARTNER, APIIC GROWTH CENTER PLOT NO 422, S NO 435 437 437 ANNAGI VILLAGE MASDDIPADU MANDAL PRAKASHAM DISTRICT, A.P PIN - 523211. L. PRABHAVATI, W/O. L. KRISHNA CHAITANYA, AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC BUSINESS R/O. H NO 1-30, SAHARA ESTATE, MANSOORABAD, LB NAGAR, HYDERABAD. . L. KRISHNA CHAITANYA, S/O. L. RANGA RAO, AGE 53 YEARS BUSINESS R/O. H NO 1-30 SAHARA ESTATE, MANSOORABAD, LB NAGAR, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, Union Bank of India, Ongole Main 1350 Trunk Road, Ongole-523001 A.P ...RESPONDENT 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 issue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the deliberate action of the Respondent/s in trying to execute the order in CRL.MP NO. 70 of 2025 dated 21-07-2025 on the file of The Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Principal Senior Civil Judge despite the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3558] SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA SRI PRABHA LIFE SCIENCES, REP. BY L. KRISHNA CHAITANYA MANAGING PARTNER, APIIC GROWTH CENTER PLOT NO 422, S NO 435 437 437 ANNAGI VILLAGE MASDDIPADU MANDAL L. PRABHAVATI, W/O. L. KRISHNA CHAITANYA, AGE ABOUT 50 30, SAHARA ESTATE, . L. KRISHNA CHAITANYA, S/O. L. RANGA RAO, AGE 53 YEARS 30 SAHARA ESTATE, ...PETITIONER(S) THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, Union Bank of India, Ongole Main ...RESPONDENT the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be issue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of pondent/s in trying to 2025 on the file of The Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Principal Senior Civil Judge despite the 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.35995 of 2025 fact of subsequent OTS approved letter No.04001/NPA dated 22-07-2025 is contrary to the Principle of NOVATION (Section 62 of The Indian Contract Act 1872) and continuing the recovery measures under SARFAESI Act 2002, without issuing further notice to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and against the Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Article 14 , 16, 19 1(g) and 300-A of Constitution of India and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 grant Stay of all further proceedings in CrI.M.P.No. 70 of 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Senior Civil Judge at Ongole pending disposal of writ petition in the interest of justice and pass 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 to direct the respondent Bank Authorities to reopen petitioner industry/unit and handover the keys to the petitioner to run the industry/unit by granting extension of time about 4 to 5 weeks for payment of balance OTS amount in the interest of Justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. V DYUMANI 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.35995 of 2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Union Bank of India. 2. Owing to the fact that the petitioners, who are the principal borrowers, have committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the respondent- Bank has initiated measures under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’). Challenging the said measures, the petitioners have earlier filed securitization application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. They have withdrawn the said application and accepted the offer given for one time settlement by the Bank. The Bank has agreed to receive a sum of Rs.5 crores on 18.12.2024 towards full and final settlement of the claim. As per the said one time settlement arrived at by both the parties, the petitioners have to pay the said amount by the end of March, 2025. But the petitioners have failed to pay the said sum of Rs.5 crores within the time stipulated. They have only paid Rs.1,10,00,000/- and did not pay the balance amount. Therefore, the Bank has initiated measures again under the Act and has already taken possession of the property. Now, the petitioners have again filed this petition seeking extension of time for payment of the amount. Even according to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, time was already extended by the Bank earlier and even within the said extended period of time, they did not pay the amount. So, when the petitioners failed to pay the amount within the time stipulated initially and even within the extended period of time, we are not inclined to interfere and grant any more time to the petitioners for payment of the amount. 3. Learned Standing Counsel opposed for grant of any further time, as the petitioners have failed to avail the opportunity given to them earlier. 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.35995 of 2025 4. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As it is stated that a representation was made by the petitioners for extension of time, it is left open to the discretion of the respondent-Bank to extend time or not. 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: 07.01.2026 MDP