WP/817/2026 of Chaganti Ratna Raghu Krishna, Vs The State Bank of India, on 7 January 2026

1. CHAGANTI RATNA PRASAD, AGED A 32, CHAITANYAP GUNTUR DISTRICT

1. THE STATE BAN MANSION, BRAH GUNTUR-522007. VIJAYAWADA.

2. SMT ATCHALA V APPOINTED IN CR JUDICIAL MAGIST 522007.. Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased to issue an appro in the nature of Writ of respondents more parti 02.01.2026 for taking o E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G WRIT PETITION NO: 817/2026 A RAGHU KRISHNA,, S/O. CHAG BOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D PURI MAIN ROAD KORETEPAD T, A.P. AND NK OF INDIA, SME BRANCH, HMAMGARI MATAM STREET, REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, ADVOCATE CO RL.MP. NO.1155 OF 2025 ON THE F TRATE CUM SESSIONS JUDGE G ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High opriate Writ, Order or direction, more Mandamus, declaring the highhande icularly Respondent No.2 in issuin ver physical possession of the subj DESH

Y DRANATH ROY GEDELA GANTI KISHNA DOOR.NO.4-22- DU, GUNTUR, ...PETITIONER SAMYUKTHA NAIDUPETA, ATORY, SARB, OMMISSIONER FILE OF CHIEF GUNTUR, PIN SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be e particularly one ed action of the g notice dated ject property in execution of the orders passed in CRL.M.P.No.1155 of 2025 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur pursuant to the application filed by the 1st respondent under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, as highly illegal and arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provision of the SARFAESI Act, and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to issue fresh demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the legal heirs of the deceased guarantor/ owner, IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including dispossession of the petitioner, pursuant to the notice dated 02.01.2026 issued by the 2nd Respondent for taking possession of the subject property in execution of the orders passed in CRL.M.P.No.1155 of 2025 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Principal Sessions Judge Guntur, pending disposal of the present main Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. 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 son of Chaganti Saradha and Chaganti Krishna Prasad. Both his parents stood as guarantors for the loan availed by the Company, which is the principal borrower, from the respondent No.1-State Bank of India. According to the petitioner, his mother is the owner of the secured asset. His mother died on 10.09.2021. So, it is the grievance of the petitioner that after the death of his mother, who is the owner of the secured asset that without giving any notice to the petitioner, who is her legal heir that the Bank has initiated measures straightaway against a dead person for realization of the loan amount. Therefore, on the said ground the petitioner now seeks to challenge the measures initiated by the Bank for realization of the loan amount.

3. Even on that ground, the petitioner as well can approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which is the appropriate forum constituted under the special enactment with special mechanism for redressal of such grievances. But, without approaching the Tribunal, the petitioner has straightaway approached the High Court, invoking the writ jurisdiction. So, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, as an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievance, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and to entertain the writ petition.

4. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal concerned for redressal of his grievance. Three days time, as requested by the petitioner, is granted for approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Till such time, there shall be direction to the learned advocate commissioner not to take possession of the property pursuant to the notice issued by her. If the petitioner fails to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal within three days and obtain any interim orders, the order of stay granted by this Court stands vacated without any further reference to this Court. 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: 08.01.2026 Note: Issue C.C. by today

B/o. MDP