sccAPHC010145182026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3575] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX WRIT PETITION NO: 8083/2026 Between: 1. ANUSHA TYRES SCRAP CENTER, A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM, REGD. NO.37ACKPU6882A1Z6, 15-60-2, MUKTYALA ROAD, JAGGAIAHPET, NTR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, UPPELLI PENTAIAH. 2 2. SMT. UPPELLI LUCY, W/O PENTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O 15-60-2, MUKTYALA ROAD, JAGGAIAHPET, NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, JAGGAIAHPET BRANCH, JAGGAIAHPET, NTR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.521175 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, JAGGAIAHPET BRANCH, JAGGAIAHPET, NTR DISTRICT.5211 ...RESPONDENT(S): CORAM: HON’BLE Mrs. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Present: Mr. J.V.Phaniduth, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. S.Satyanarayana Moorthy, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** WP-8083-2026 -2- LISA GILL,J. Prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to respondent not to take any further steps pursuant to notice dated 11.12.2025 without deciding petitioners’ representation/objections dated 12.12.2025 and to consider One Time Settlement qua petitioners’ loan. 2. It is submitted that petitioner No.1, a proprietorship firm availed of loan facility of Rs.45,00,000/- from respondent No.2 on 05.04.2022. Loan facility was secured by mortgaging property owned by petitioner No.2. 3. Loan facility, it is submitted, was serviced regularly from 05.04.2022 to September, 2025, but on account of business exigencies and difficulties, there was financial indiscipline on part of petitioners leading to declaration of the account Non-Performing Asset (NPA). 4. Notice dated 11.12.2025 under Section 13(2) under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short “SARFAESI Act”) was issued to the petitioners. 5. Representation/reply is stated to have been submitted by petitioners, explaining the circumstances in which financial indiscipline occurred with a request to consider One Time Settlement for petitioners. Petitioners also sought details of the principle amount, interest, miscellaneous charges etc. collected from their accounts. 6. It is contended that respondent officials received the representations/objections filed by petitioners but never responded to the same, after taking a decision thereon and to the contrary issued Possession Notice dated 26.02.2026. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners vehemently argues that it is not open to the respondent-Bank to have taken any further action in respect to the property without deciding the objections filed by petitioners, after issuance of notice under Section 13(2). There is, thus, complete violation of section 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act. WP-8083-2026 -3- 8. Representations/objections, if any, submitted by borrower pursuant to the receipt of notice under Section 13(2) should be closely scrutinized, examined and then decided upon before taking any further steps in this regard. Learned counsel for petitioners has referred to judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in ITC Limited Vs. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd., 2018 (15) SCC 99, to submit that as per requirement under Section 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act, act of consideration of objections by the creditor, is required. A reasoned order should be passed indicating grounds for non-acceptance of objections/representations by debtor. It is thus, prayed that this writ petition be allowed, as prayed for. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the writ petition while submitting that apart from petitioners having an efficacious remedy which they have not availed, there is no merit in this writ petition. Dismissal thereof is sought. 10. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file with their able assistance. 11. It is matter of record that loan facility was availed of by petitioner No.1 while securing the same with mortgage of property of petitioner No.2. Admittedly, there was financial indiscipline on part of petitioners leading to declaration of its account NPA; issuance of notice under Section 13(2) and thereafter 13(4). 12. At the outset, it is pertinent to refer to Section 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act: Section 13: Enforcement of security interest. (3) The notice referred to in sub-section (2) shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor in the event of non-payment of secured debts by the borrower. [(3A) If, on receipt of the notice under sub-section (2), the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the WP-8083-2026 -4- secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate within fifteen days of receipt of such representation or objection the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower: Provided that the reasons so communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons shall not confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 or the Court of District Judge under section 17A.] 13. A bare perusal of provisio to 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act, clearly reveals that reasons for rejection so communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor cannot not confer any right upon the borrower. The ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that non-consideration of petitioners’ objections itself raises a jurisdictional issue calling for intervention by this Court. Reference by learned counsel for petitioners to judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in ITC Limited Vs. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd., (supra) is of no avail. Borrower/debtor in the said case had duly approached learned Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short “DRT”), after issuance of notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. 14. In our considered opinion, there is no such exceptional or extraordinary circumstance which calls for interference by this Court at this stage. Admittedly, petitioners have alternative remedy provided under statute for challenging the proceedings in question. All pleas as have been raised before us are very well within the realm of consideration by the said tribunal. It is a settled position that interference in such like matters should be minimal and actuated only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. Gainful reference in this respect can be made to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110 WP-8083-2026 -5- and M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. And others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and another, 2023 (2) RCR (Civil) 771 and then in PHR Invent Educational Society Versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 AIR (SC) 1893, Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B.Sreenivasulu & ors., 2023 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 34. 15. Apprehension raised by learned counsel for petitioners is that detailed account statement is not being provided, therefore, scuttling the right of the petitioner. In this respect, we direct that details of the amount deposited by petitioner, it’s treatment and manner of calculation of total amount be provided to petitioners within a period of three days. 16. Further more, petitioners are always at liberty to approach the respondent-Bank for One Time Settlement in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. It is not for this Court to direct the respondent-Bank to enter into any particular One Time Settlement. Gainful reference in this respect can be made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in The Bijnor Urban Cooperation Bank Limited, Bijnor & others Vs. Meenal Agarwal & others, 2023 (2) SCC 805. 17. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, this writ petition is disposed of with petitioners being relegated to pursue their remedy(ies) available under the statute with liberty to raise all available pleas in accordance with law. There is no expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Petitioners are also at liberty to pursue the matter regarding One Time Settlement with the Bank and it is always open to parties to arrive at any mutually acceptable settlement. No order as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly. (LISA GILL) JUDGE (NINALA JAYASURYA) JUDGE Date:08.04.2026 Ksj