Telugu Actor-Producer Bandla Ganesh Moves Supreme Court Against Bank Auction Of Property

Telugu film actor and producer Bandla Ganesh Babu has approached the Supreme Court challenging the auction of one of his mortgaged properties under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, raising significant questions on the interplay between the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.

Ganesh has filed a Special Leave Petition challenging a common judgment dated July 3, 2026, passed by the Telangana High Court, which had set aside an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II (DRT), Hyderabad. 

The dispute arises from credit facilities extended by Union Bank of India to M/s. Sri Parameswara Poultry Farm Private Limited, Hyderabad. Ganesh and his family had mortgaged their privately owned properties as collateral security for the loans. During the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), the Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and auctioned one of the mortgaged properties.

The DRT had earlier declared the auction proceedings and the sale certificate to be unsustainable. It directed refund of the auction consideration, along with interest, to the auction purchaser and ordered restoration of possession of the property to the petitioners.

However, the Telangana High Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, prompting Ganesh to move the Supreme Court.

According to the petition, the case raises substantial questions relating to the rights of personal guarantors to corporate debtors, the jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunals under the SARFAESI Act, the maintainability of writ petitions despite the availability of statutory appellate remedies, and the scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It also raises issues concerning judicial admissions by secured creditors and the principles of waiver, acquiescence, election, restitution and unjust enrichment.

The petition contends that after accepting a final One Time Settlement (OTS), the Bank recovered approximately ₹129.02 crore, including ₹71.44 crore paid under the settlement, and issued a settlement certificate acknowledging complete satisfaction of its dues. Despite this, the Bank allegedly continued to retain the benefit of the auction sale.

According to the petition, permitting the Bank to retain both the settlement amount and the auctioned property would amount to unjust enrichment and defeat settled principles governing secured transactions.

Ganesh has also challenged the High Court's decision to entertain the Bank's writ petition instead of requiring it to avail the statutory appellate remedy before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The plea argues that the High Court effectively exercised appellate jurisdiction over the findings of a specialised statutory tribunal without recording any finding of perversity or jurisdictional error.

The petition submits that the issues involved have wider ramifications for banking law and insolvency jurisprudence, particularly concerning the legislative interaction between the SARFAESI Act and the IBC and the rights of personal guarantors.

Union Bank of India and the auction purchaser have already lodged caveats before the Supreme Court, indicating that they intend to oppose the grant of any interim relief at the initial hearing.

The petition has been filed through M/s. Ramesh Allanki & Associates, Advocates-on-Record and Supreme Court counsel.

Case : Bandla Ganesh Babu v Union Bank of India and others | SLP (Civil) Diary No. 41225 of 2026