Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/13995/2025 of KESAVAHANUMA COTTON AND OIL MILLS .PVT.LTD Vs CANARA BANK on 14 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 13995 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:- 22 [3575] M/s. Kesavahanuma Cotton & Oil Mills. Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. M/s. Canara Bank ...Respondent CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:- 15th
APHC010278222025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 13995 of 2025
Bench Sr.No:-
M/s. Kesavahanuma Cotton & Oil Mills. Pvt. Ltd.
...Petitioner
Vs.
M/s. Canara Bank
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
Date:-
15th April 2026
Present:-
Mr. Venkata Subba Rao Vadrevu,
Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Sreedhar Valiveti, Advocate for
respondent.
**********
LISA GILL,J.
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. Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside sale notice dated 17.04.2025 and any further proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that issuance of the said sale notice itself is in violation of Rule 8(6) & 6(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for brevity “SIER, 2002”).
2. Learned counsel for petitioner states that thirty (30) days notice in terms of Rule 8(6) & Rule 9(1) of SIER, 2002 Rules was not issued, therefore, entire proceedings should be set aside.
3.
(a) Learned counsel for respondent Bank, however, refutes averments made on behalf of petitioner, while submitting that loan facility was taken by petitioner in the year 2013 and an equitable mortgage of property in question was accordingly created in favour of respondent Bank. Petitioner account was declared non-performing Asset (NPA) on 30.06.2016. One Time Settlement (OTS) was also afforded to petitioner on 06.12.2023 and the same was revised on 02.01.2024, but, petitioner failed to fulfill the terms and conditions thereof. Sale notice of property in question had been issued on earlier occasions and reference was also made to sale notice dated 23.04.2024, in which 30 days notice had been given. Notice dated 17.04.2025 was issued subsequently as earlier sale notice did not lead to culmination of sale, as no bidders had expressed interest.
(b) Therefore, in terms of provisio of Rule 9(1) of SIER, 2002 Rules, it is only a notice of fifteen (15) days which was required. Needful had been done and at the time of filing of writ petition, sale had been completed and sale certificate had also been issued on 21.05.2025.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner may be permitted to avail remedy(ies), as may be available to the petitioner, in accordance with law to challenge the SARFAESI proceedings initiated against it as well as pursue respondent bank for a settlement of the matter.
5. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to petitioner as aforementioned. There is no expression of opinion on merits of the matter. No order as to costs.
6. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.
(LISA GILL) JUDGE
(NINALA JAYASURYA) JUDGE
Date: 15.04.2026 ANS
HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION NO: 13995 of 2025
Date: 15.04.2026 ANS