The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that, following the Supreme Court’s decision in M. Rajendran v. KPK Oils & Proteins India (P) Ltd, writ petitions challenging private finance company actions are not maintainable; petition dismissed accordingly. This upholds the current legal position and is binding precedent for future challenges to recovery proceedings initiated by private housing finance companies.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/24658/2024 of Nekkanti Jaya Satya Srinivas Vs Hinduja Housing Finance Ltd, CNR APHC010479902024 |
| Date of Registration | 26-10-2024 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Bench | DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ and R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts within Andhra Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court decision in M. Rajendran v. KPK Oils & Proteins India (P) Ltd (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2036) |
| Type of Law | Writ jurisdiction under Constitution of India (Article 226) |
| Questions of Law | Maintainability of writ petitions against private finance company recovery actions under Article 226 |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | M. Rajendran v. KPK Oils & Proteins India (P) Ltd (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2036) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The reasoning in the judgment rested on the Apex Court’s clear exposition in M. Rajendran, which delineates the scope of writ jurisdiction vis-à-vis private financial companies. The High Court expressly followed this precedent and did not provide additional independent analysis. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The facts were not independently recorded or summarised in the court’s judgment; the writ petition was dismissed in limine based on binding precedent. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the territorial jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering maintainability of writ petitions against private finance companies |
| Follows | M. Rajendran v. KPK Oils & Proteins India (P) Ltd (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2036) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Courts in Andhra Pradesh will summarily dismiss writ petitions against private finance companies challenging recovery proceedings, in line with Supreme Court in M. Rajendran.
- Citing public law elements or exceptional circumstances is necessary to invoke writ jurisdiction against non-State entities in such matters.
- Lawyers must now carefully assess whether alternative private law remedies are available before invoking Article 226 in loan recovery disputes involving private finance companies.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court treated the present writ petition as covered by the Supreme Court’s decision in M. Rajendran v. KPK Oils & Proteins India (P) Ltd.
- No additional analysis was made beyond noting that the reasoning and outcome in M. Rajendran fully apply.
- The Supreme Court in M. Rajendran established that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally not available to challenge actions by private financial companies, as they are not performing public functions.
- By following this, the High Court dismissed the writ petition on identical legal grounds.
- The dismissal was consistent with a prior order in W.P. No. 19059 of 2024.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
Arguments by the petitioner were not independently recorded or summarised in the judgment.
Respondent
Arguments by the respondent were not independently recorded or summarised in the judgment.
Factual Background
The factual matrix was not independently set out in the judgment. The High Court disposed of the petition summarily, following its previously stated approach and the binding ratio of the Supreme Court in the relevant precedents.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment applied the general principles regarding the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against private entities.
- No new statutory interpretation was discussed; the application of the Supreme Court’s previous jurisprudence was the basis of dismissal.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There was no separate dissenting or concurring opinion; both judges concurred in dismissing the writ petition.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directions were issued; the petition was dismissed strictly on precedent grounds.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court’s legal position in M. Rajendran v. KPK Oils & Proteins India (P) Ltd affirmed and followed.