APHC010322852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 16128 OF 2025 Between: Gnapika Automobiles Private Ltd Company, D.No.25-9-3, Santhi Nagar, Main Road, Ward No.9, Eluru-534007. Managing Director Kolli Suresb Babu. Eluru District, rep. by its ...Petitioner AND 1. State Bank Of India, SME, Rajahmundry Branch Manager Somanath Das rep. by its Chief Sadhan Kumar Das, Rajahmahendravaram-533103. East Godavari District. 2. M/s Sri Gokul Motors Borrower, D.No. 17-15-1, Sri Krishna Nilayam, ASR Stadium Road, Eluru-534005. Eluru District, rep. by Managing Partner, P.Sri Lakshmi. S/o 3. S Ranga Rao, Advocate-commissioner, C/o District court Complex, Eluru-534006. Eluru District. ...Respondents 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 .9 pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in proclaiming to take forcible possession of the property in possession of the >petitioner ie., RCC G plus 2 building in TS Nos.610, 615, 621 and 622 O.Ward, D.No.17-15-1, First Floor back side of ground floor, Sri Krishna , Nilayam, Ward No. 16, Lakshmivarapu Peta, Eluru, Ground Floor 2100 and First Floor 4200 Sq. ft by virtue of registered lease deed Dt.31-12-2024, ignoring the rights of the petitioner and under the guise of the orders in CRL M P No 246/2025 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Principal Civil Judge Senior Division Eluru West Godavari District filed sq. ft by the 1 st respondent Bank under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act by suppressing the material facts and by playing fraud on the court as illegal, arbitrary and violation the Procedure under the SARFESI Act and against the principles of natural justice and also violation of Article 13, 19, 21 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent and his in men not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the above mentioned property under the orders in CrI.MP No.246/2025 Dt.27-05- 2025. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated m the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim direction, directing the respondents 1 & 3 and their men not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property RCC G+2 building in TS Nos.610. 615, 621 & 622 D.Ward, D.No.17-15-1, First Floor back side of ground floor, Sri Krishna Nilayam, Ward No. 16, Lakshmivarapu Peta, Eluru, Ground Floor 2100 sq. ft and First Floor 4200 Sq. ft by virtue of registered lease deed Dt.31-12- 2024 under the orders In CrI.MP No.246/2025 Dt.27-05-2025 and grant such other just relief or reliefs as this Hon ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice. 0 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO PAPPU Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI S SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY The Court made the following order: APHC010322852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-16 [3483] AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 16128 of 2025 GNAPIKA Automobiles Private Ltd Company ...Petitioner Vs. State Bank of India and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner Advocate for Respondents Mr. Srinivasa Rao Pappu Mr. S. Satyanarayana Moorthy- R.1 CORAM .THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI : 1®* July, 2025 DATE PC : The petitioner is a lessee in a premises which was mortgaged by the owner as principal borrower with respondent No.1 - State Bank of India. 2. On account of the proceedings having been initiated by the respondent bank by invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the petitioner, who is a lessee in the premises is sought to be dispossessed. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner does have an alternative remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and considering the ratio of the judgments of the Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of 2 HCJ & RC, J WP 16128 2025 0 Himachal Pradesh [(2021) 6 SCC 771] and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110], we do not find it a fit case to invoke our extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. 4. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINiVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, 1. One CC to Sri. Srinivasa Rao Pappu Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. S Satyanarayana Moorthy Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD CoplPS ' *:,T ^ ! ■H.. GSC ■ ■ ' M i .-’f- HIGH COURT DATED:01/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 16128 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS