The petitioner, Natta Jaya Kumari, challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court the action of Gandhi Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. (3rd respondent) in invoking Chapter III of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to recover a mortgage loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- availed in 2012, arguing that the Bank's belated registration of the security interest with CERSAI (done only in April 2023) violated Section 26D of the SARFAESI Act and Rule 5 of the Central Registry Rules, 2011, thereby disentitling the Bank from enforcing the security. The Bank countered that Rule 5's 30-day registration requirement had been omitted by the Security Interest (Central Registry) Amendment Rules, 2020, that CERSAI registration is merely procedural and delay does not invalidate the security interest, and that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The Division Bench, relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank (2024) 6 SCC 579 and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110, held that High Courts should ordinarily not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 when effective statutory alternative remedies exist under the SARFAESI Act and the DRT Act. The Court found that the petitioner had not demonstrated any prejudice caused by the belated CERSAI registration, that the 30-day rule had been omitted by the 2020 amendment, and that all legal and factual objections could be raised before the DRT.