# WP/2001/2025 of AKKARAPALLI MADHAVA REDDY Vs THE CANARA BANK

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Date: 2025-01-27
Citation: APHC010039472025
Petitioner: WP/2001/2025 of AKKARAPALLI MADHAVA REDDY
Respondent: THE CANARA BANK

[Official PDF on High Court of Andhra Pradesh website](https://indian-high-court-judgments.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/data/pdf/year=2025/court=28_2/bench=aphc/APHC010039472025_1_2025-01-28.pdf)

## Judgment text (excerpt)

APHC010039472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-12 [3483] AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2001 of 2025 Akkarapalli Madhava Reddy ...Petitioner Vs. The Canara Bank and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for petitioner : Sri C. Subodh Advocate for respondents : None CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 28th January 2025 PC: The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). 2. Considering the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P.,1 whereby the Apex Court had reiterated the principle that when an alternate remedy was available to a person, the resort to extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not permitted unless the Court was satisfied that the case of the petitioner fell within any of the exceptions which had been crystallized by the Apex Court as under:- 1 (2021) 6 SCC 771 2 “27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III 

https://niyam.ai/judgements/high-court/2025/january/wp-2001-2025-of-akkarapalli-madhava-reddy-vs-the-canara-bank