The petitioner, Pindrala Bullamma, challenged a sale notice dated 26.05.2025 issued by the Gandhi Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd (3rd respondent) through a Writ of Mandamus before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, alleging that the bank attempted to sell her mortgaged property without registering the mortgage with CERSAI and without furnishing loan account statements, in violation of Section 26D of the SARFAESI Act and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The bank countered that it had belatedly registered the security interest with CERSAI on 30.05.2023, that no prescribed time limit for registration existed after the 2020 amendment, and that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The court found that the belated CERSAI registration, following the omission of the earlier 30-day requirement, did not invalidate the security interest, and that no clear prejudice to the petitioner from the delay was demonstrated. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, the court emphasised that High Courts should ordinarily not entertain Article 226 petitions when effective statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act are available.