Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/357/2026 of GUDE NAGARAJU Vs PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED on 5 January 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT PETITION NO: 357/2026 Between: 1. GUDE NAGARAJU, S/O GUDE CHINA PERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.2 PRAKASAM DISTRICT 1. PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND
APHC010003422026
IN TH
TUESDA
TWO
THE HONOURABLE SR
THE HONOURAB
W
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. GUDE NAGARAJU YEARS, R/O DOO PRAKASAM DISTR
1. PIRAMAL CAPIT REPRESENTED B BRANCH, OFFICE CHANDRAMOULI N
2. SRI Y MOUNIKA, A D/O OF NOT KNO COMMISSIONER, FILE OF THE CH SENIOR CIVIL JUD
3. MR PAVULURI HA NOT KNOWN TO T LINE, GOPAL NAGA
4. MRS PAVULURI ABOUT NOT KNOW 1ST LINE, GOPAL N E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G WRIT PETITION NO: 357/2026 , S/O GUDE CHINA PERAIAH, AG OR NO.2-1-291/11, GADDALAGUNT RICT-523002. AND TAL AND HOUSING FINANC BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AT D.NO.4-18-29, 1ST FLOOR, P NAGAR, NEAR RING ROAD, GUNTU AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN TO THE OWN TO THE PETITIONER, TH APPOINTED IN CRL.MP. NO.203/2 HIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-CUM- DGE, ONGOLE-523001. ARI KIRAN, S/O SRINIVASA RAO, THE PETITIONER, R/O DOOR NO AR ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRIC RAJINI, W/O PAVULURI HARI KI WN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O DOO NAGAR ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DIST DESH
DRANATH ROY GEDELA ED ABOUT 37 TA ONGOLE, ...PETITIONER CE LIMITED, R, GUNTUR P.N0.1 AND 2, UR-522007. E PETITIONER, E ADVOCATE 2025 ON THE
- PRINCIPAL AGED ABOUT O. 39-5-21, 1ST T-523001. IRAN, AGED OR NO.39-5-21, TRICT-523001.
...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, order or Direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in initiating recovery proceedings and the subsequent orders passed in CRL.MP.No.203/2025 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the Petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently, stay all further proceedings including the execution of the warrant for taking physical possession of the property in Flat No. 104, 1st Floor, Door No.37-76-97-104, Assessment No. 1035065317, 1st Floor, Thirumala Residency, Ongole, Prakasam District, until the Petitioner approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal and obtain necessary interim orders and pass 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including taking possession, transfer, or sale of the secured property in Flat No.104, 1st Floor, Door No.37-76-97-104, Assessment No. 1035065317, 1st Floor, Thirumala Residency, Ongole, Prakasam District, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SHAIK AMEENA REHMANI 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. Claiming to be the tenant in respect of the secured asset under the principal borrower, who is the owner of the property and claiming to be the prospective vendee under the agreement of sale said to have been executed by the owner of the property, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the measures initiated by the respondent No.1-financial institution against the principal borrower and the guarantor for realization of the loan amount. The petitioner has got an efficacious remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which is the appropriate forum specially constituted under the special enactment for redressal of such grievances. But, without approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner has directly approached this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has time and again deprecated the practice of entertaining the writ petitions when the aggrieved person got an adequate remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. As the petitioner has got an efficacious remedy of approaching the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and to entertain the writ petition.
3. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking redressal of his grievance. 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: 06.01.2026 MDP