The High Court · 2025

M/s Shine lndustries, Plot No.44lB, Sy Park, Kucharam Village, Manoharabad Rep. by its Managing partner. Sri. Muttangi Venkata Naga Sriman, S/o. Muttangi lakshmipathi, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o. C2-38, Srila Park, Pride, Opp.Calvary Temple, Hydernagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad- 500049. .No.228l9, TSllC, Kucharam lndustrial Mandal, Medak District - 502336. ...PETITIONER AND

1. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Rep by its The Managing Director, 5-9-194, PB No.165, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad.

2. The Senior Branch Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Ramachandrapuram Branch, Plot No.3B and 39, APSFC Building, Ground Floor, Behind lClCl Towers, Financial District, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents, more particularly respondent No.2, in not considering the representation dated. 30.08.2025 submitted by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia, and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. State Finance Corporation Act, 1951 , and consequently to direct the respondents to Consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.08.2025 in accordance with law and thereby refrain them from taking any coercive steps including cancellation of reliefs granted under OTS and seizure of the petitioner's unit. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit liled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondernts to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.08.2025 including dirt>ction to refrain the respondents from taking any coercive steps of cancellation rf the reliefs granted under OTS and seizure of the petitioner's unit pending disprrsal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for lhe Respondents: SRI M. HAMSA RAJ (SC FOR APSFC) The Court mitde the following: ORDER 1 wp_26237_2025 NBK, J WRIT PETITIO No.26231 of2025 ORDER: The case of the petitioner, as set out in the writ affidavit, is that it is a partnership firm constituted under a Partnership Deed dated 03.02.2017, with the objective of manufacturing plastic articles and HDPE barrels. The petitioner acquired industrial land at Plot No. 4418, Sy. No. 22819, TGIIC Kucharam Industrial Park, Medak District, and applied for a loan of Rs. 202 lakhs from the lst respondent-State Financial Corporation. Though the loan was sanctioned, only an amount of Rs. 1,79,81,677 was disbursed in phases between 02.02.2019 and 03.12.2020; the balance amount was never released.

1.1 It is the petitioner's case that, despite a repayment holiday of l% yedrs, the respondents issued a Demand Notice dated :17.08.2020, classiffing the loan account as a Non-Performing Asset (l.iPA). The petitioner contends that it has paid approximately Rs. 59,27,615 during the period 2019--2023; however, instead of regularising the loan account, the respondents have initiated coercive measures and threatened to seize the unit. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.08.202.5, which has not yet been considered by the respondents. Hence, the present writ petition.

2. Heard iv[r. K. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit, submits that the petitioner, through a representation dated 2 wp_2623L_2025 NBK, J

30.08.2025. requested the respondents to permit repayment of only the principal component of the loan amount, citing health issues and hospitalizeLtion in the petitioner's family. However, the said representation has not ber:n considered to date. Learned Standing Counsel forthe respondents, relying on the counter-

4. affidavit, submits that the petitioner was required to offer collateral worth Rs. 45.44 lakhs for the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.202 lakhs; however, he furnisht:d collateral valued at only Rs. 34.45 lakhs, and therefore the respondents disbursed Rs.179.74 lakhs in proportion to the collateral offered. It is further contended that the loan repayment schedule commenced from the date of disbursement of the first instalment, i.e.,02.02.2019, when Rs.54.19 lakhs was released. The petitioner has been irregular in repayment, and as of 3l .07 .2020, an amount of Rs. 187 .57 lakhs, including interest, was outstanding; and therefore, the respondents were constrained to declare the petitioner's loan account as an NPA, and the same is not illegal or arbitrary.

5. Having considered the submissions of both parties and perused the record, it is to be noted that the petitioner availed a loan of Rs. l79.74lakhs from the re:;pondent-Corporation; and has allegedly repaid an amount of approximate ly Rs.59,27,615 during the perio d2019-2023. Nevertheless, the account has been classified as an NPA. The petitioner has submiued a representation, which is still pending consideration.

5.1. It is undisputed that the petitioner is legally obligated to repay the monthly instalments comprising both principal and interest components. Although tht: petitioner has made a representation seeking permission to repay only the principal component of the loan, he cannot rely on the pendency of such representation to avoid payment of instalments. He -./' 3 wp_26231_2025 NBK, J remains liable to continue paying the dues until an order is passed on the said representation.

5.2. However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the pendency of the representation before the respondent authorities, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case at this stage. Nonetheless, the Court directs the petitioner to pay the interest component due and payable on the loan amount outstanding up to the date of classification of the account as NPA and to continue paying the interest component on the outstanding loan amount until a decision is made on the representation dated 30.08.2025.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No. I and 2 to consider the representation dated 30.08.2025 and pass appropriate orde.s within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall pay the interest component due and payable on the loan amount outstanding up to the date the account was classified as an NPA and shall continue to pay the interest component on the outstanding loan amount until orders are passed on the pending representation. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ,/ //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State 194, PB No.165, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad. SD/. U.S SISTANT RE N OFFICER Corporation, 5-9-

2. The Senior Branch Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, B.r*r"lqqdrap_uralqBranch, Plot No.38 and 39, APSFC Buitding,'Ground : Floor, Behind lclcl rowers, Financial District, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad.

3. One CC to Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri M. Hamsa Raj (SC for APSFC) IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies TJ GJP NI HIGH C()URT DATED:15/09/2025 ORDER WP.No.26231 of 2025 ,fliil' ' ' r{ET \' 0 3 i'ilr i )- 9 '+ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ NI ,,\I,T