WP/2879/2026 of PARIMI RAJINI Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 2 February 2026

1. PARIMI RAJINI, W/ ABOUT 63 YEAR SHANKAR NAGAR DISTRICT- 520007.

1. STATE BANK OF Towers, 30-22, R Sitaramapuram, Go Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased to issue an app one in the nature of Writ proceedings in auction id pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Secti in the affidavit filed in sup issue an appropriate Wr nature of Writ of Man E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 2879/2026 O PARIMI VENKATESWARA RAO @ RS, 20-214/1, MARUTHI RECIDENC R, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KANU . AND INDIA, Rep by its authorised sig Road, Kothavanthena Center, Durg vernor Peta, Vijayawada, Andhra Prad ...R le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High propriate Writ or Order or direction m of Mandamus declaring the action to s d CERSAI ID 200056532653 dated 09 on 151 CPC praying that in the circum pport of the petition, the High Court ma rit or Order or direction more particu ndamus declaring the action to su DESH

DRANATH ROY GEDELA @ GOPI, AGED CY, GOWERY RU, KRISHNA ...PETITIONER gnatory, Surya ga Agraharam, desh 520002. RESPONDENT aying that in the h Court may be more particularly suspend auction 9-01-2026 and to mstances stated ay be pleased to ularly one in the uspend auction

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.2879 of 2026

proceedings in auction id CERSAI ID 200056532653 dated 09-01-2026 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. MAREEDU SASIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent:

1. CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.2879 of 2026

The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the guarantor for the loan availed by the principal borrower from the respondent-State Bank of India. As the borrower committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the Bank has sold the secured asset in the public auction that was held on 09.01.2026. Challenging the said auction, the petitioner, who is the guarantor, filed this writ petition. He challenges the legal validity of the auction on the ground that the petitioner being the guarantor has paid part of the loan amount, as demanded by the Bank and yet they have sold away the secured asset in the auction. That is the only ground on which the petitioner seeks to challenge the legal validity of the auction. We do not find any valid ground to interfere in the matter. When admittedly the guarantor has only paid part of the loan amount and still there is outstanding amount due to the Bank towards the loan account, the Bank has got every right to proceed with auction of the secured asset to realize the entire due amount from both the borrower and the guarantor. Therefore, there is absolutely no valid ground emanating from the record to invalidate the auction that was held on 09.01.2026 or to find fault with the Bank in proceeding with auction of the secured asset.

3. Therefore, we see no valid ground to entertain the writ petition. So, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Date: 03.02.2026 MDP