Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
The Addl. Superintendent Of Police vs State Bank Of India on 25 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: W.A.Nos.762, 624, 822 and 848 of 2024 , W.P.No.19525
of 2016, Crl.P.Nos.427 and 428 of 2019, CrlA.Nos.342, 343, 344, 346 and
348 of 2020
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
17. 24.07.2025 RNT, J & MRK, J
On 22.07.2025, this Court passed the
order as under:
"Heard Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned
Advocate General appearing for the
State/appellant in W.A.No.822 of 2024, Ms.Y.
Bhanu Sri Akhila, learned counsel for the
appellant/s in W.A.No. 762 of 2024, Sri
P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant/s in W.A.No.624 of 2024 and Sri
P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel
representing Sri B.Sarvotham Reddy, learned
counsel for the appellant/s in W.A.No.848 of
2024.
2. Sri Challa Dhanunjay, learned Senior
Advocate representing Sri K.Harinarayana,
learned Standing counsel for the respondent-
Canara Bank and Sri S.Satyanaryana
Moorthy, learned Standing counsel for the
respondent-State Bank of India, pray for
adjournment, to enable them to advance their
submissions.
3. Post the matters on 24.07.2025.”
2. The matters were posted today for the
arguments of the respondents’ side in the Writ
Appeals.
3. The learned Advocate General for the
appellants as also the other learned counsels for
the appellants in the Writ Appeal(s) in their
2
submissions mainly placing reliance in the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National
Spot Exchange Limited v. Union of India
(2025 SCC OnLine SC 1137), contended that
applying the law as laid down therein, the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act
(in short ‘SARFAESI Act‘), shall have no
overriding effect over the Andhra Pradesh
Protection of Depositors of Financial
Establishments Act, 1999(in short ‘the A.P.Act of
1999’). The learned Advocate General further
submitted that the constitutional validity of the
A.P.Act of 1999, was also upheld in Soma
Suresh Kumar v. Government of Andhra
Pradesh and others((2013) 10 SCC 677).
4. Today, on behalf of the respondents, Sri
Challa Dhananjay, learned Assistant Solicitor
General, Sri S.Satyanarayana Moorthy, learned
Standing Counsel for the State Bank of India and
Sri K.Harinarayana, learned Standing Counsel
for the Canara Bank, submit that the State Bank
of India has filed the review petition against the
judgment in National Spot Exchange Limited
(supra) and the same is pending before the
Hon’ble Apex Court and they pray that these
matters may be adjourned, for a period of four
weeks.
5. The respective learned counsels for the
Bank further submit that they have instructions
3
that the respective Banks shall not proceed
under the SARFAESI Act.
6. Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant
Government Pleader, representing the learned
Advocate General, submits that they have no
objection to the adjournment, though filing of the
review would not come in the way of further
hearing of the Writ Appeals. He further submits
that pursuant to the judgment of the Writ Court by
the learned Single Judge, the respondents may
proceed further as by the said judgment,
G.O.Ms.No.13 has also been quashed.
7. The State Government issued
G.O.Ms.No.13 Home (General) Department,
dated 17.02.2016 under the A.P.Act of 1999,
attaching certain properties of the respondents 2
and 3 in W.P.No.19525 of 2016, which were
mortgaged in favour of the Bank. G.O.Ms.No.13
was challenged in the Writ Petition.
8. The learned Single Judge, while allowing
the writ petition took the view that the SARFAESI
Act shall have overriding affect over the Andhra
Pradesh Act, 1999 and hence the right of the writ
petitioner to proceed against security interest
shall prevail.
9. In National Spot Exchange Limited
(supra), question No.1, was as follows:
“Whether the Secured creditors would have
priority of interest over the assets attached
4under the Provisions of Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002, (PMLA) and
Maharashtra Protection of Investors and
Depositors Act, 1999 (MPID Act), by virtue of
the Provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and
RDB Act, 1993?”
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 40 of
National Spot Exchange Limited (supra) as
under:
“40. In view of the above position of law
settled by the Constitution Bench, it is held
that considering the pith and substance of the
State and the Central Legislations in question,
the Central Legislations i.e.. SARFAESI Act or
RDB Act cannot be permitted to prevail over
the State Legislation i.e.. MPID Act, merely
because the Central Legislations are enacted
by the Parliament. Since all these Acts have
separate field of operations, provisions of
SARFAESI Act or RDB Act cannot be
permitted to override the provisions of MPID
Act, which is a validly enacted State
Legislation, otherwise it would tantamount to
violation of federal structure doctrine
envisaged in the Constitution. The respective
legislative powers of the Union and the States
are traceable to Articles 245 to 254 of the
Constitution. The State qua the Constitution is
Federal in structure, and independent in its
exercise of legislative and executive power.
Therefore, if provisions of SARFAESI Act or
RDB Act are permitted to override the
provisions of MPID Act, then the legislative
powers of the State Legislature would be
denuded which would tantamount to
subverting the law enacted by the State
Legislature.”
11. In Soma Suresh Kumar (supra), the
Hon’ble Apex Court held as under in para-16:
“16. We notice in New Horizon Sugar Mills
Ltd. case, this Court held that the objects of
the Tamil Nadu Act, the Maharashtra Act and
the Pondicherry Act are the same and/or of
similar nature. In our view, the object and
5purpose as well as the provisions of the
Andhra Act are in pari materia with that of the
Tamil Nadu, the Maharashtra and the
Pondicherry Acts, the constitutional validity of
those legislations has already been upheld.
We also fully concur with the views expressed
by this Court in those judgments and uphold
the constitutional validity of the Andhra Act.”
12. Prima facie, at this stage, considering the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National
Spot Exchange Limited (supra) and Soma
Suresh Kumar (supra) as also being of the
prima facie view that the judgment of the learned
Single Judge is contrary to the law as laid down
in National Spot Exchange Limited (supra), we
stay the operation of the judgment under appeal.
13. In the Criminal Petitions, it is submitted
that there is already interim order. The same is
also extended till the next date of listing.
14. List after four weeks.
_____________
RNT, J
_____________
MRK, J
Pab
6
7