WP/14184/2025 of SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA AGENCIES Vs THE BRANCH MANAGER on 5 November 2025

1. SRI LAKSHMI VEN 2ND FLOOR, V GOLLAPUDI, VIJAY VENKATA NAGABH

2. CHITIURI VENKAT RAO, AGED AB RESIDENCY, GOL

1. THE BRANCH MA BANK OF INDIA, G

2. THE AUTHORIZE GANNAVARAM, KR Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased tobe pleased to Writ, Order or Direction 03.05.2025 scheduled t respondent officials with of 209.50 sq. yards in D E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 14184/2025 NKATESWARA AGENCIES, PROPR VASAVI PHARMA, OPP. AYYAP YAWADA. REP. BY ITS PROPRIET HUSHANAM. TA NAGABHUSHANAM, S/O RAMA BOUT 66 YEARS, R/O FLAT LLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA. ...P AND ANAGER, SME GANNAVARAM BRA GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ED OFFICER, STATE BANK RISHNA DISTRICT. ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High o WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any ot n to DECLARE the E-auction publ to be conducted on 05.06.2025 respect to residential property situa oor Nos. 12-116 and 12-117, Old A DESH

R DRANATH ROY GEDELA RIETOR FIRM, PPA TEMPLE, OR, CHITIURI A NARASIMHA NO. G1, SAI PETITIONER(S) ANCH, STATE . OF INDIA, SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be ther appropriate lic notice dated issued by the ted in an extent Assessment No.

12478, RS. No. 275/1A1 of Akulavari veedhi, Jaggayyapeta, Krishna district, with very lesser Reserve price, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and rules made thereunder and contrary to Articles 14 and 300- A of Constitution of India and consequently SET-ASIDE the E-auction public notice dated 03.05.2025 issued by the respondent officials in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to STAY of all further proceedings pursuant to the E-auction public notice dated 03.05.2025 scheduled to be conducted on 05.06.2025 issued by the respondent officials, in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 pleased to vacate the interim order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No. 14184 of 2025 dt. 05-06-2025 and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. J.V.PHANIDUTH Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. SATYANARAYANA DHARA

The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Vinodini Ruth, learned counsel representing Mr. Satyanarayana Dhara, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State Bank of India.

2. The 1st petitioner is the sole proprietary concern and the 2nd petitioner is the proprietor of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner availed loan from respondent No.1-State Bank of India. It has offered the property in question as security for re-payment of the said loan amount. As the petitioner committed default in payment of the loan amount, the respondents have initiated proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’), against the petitioners, after complying with the procedure contemplated under the Act and brought the house property in question for sale in E-auction. The petitioners have challenged the said E-auction public notice dated 03.05.2025, as per which the auction is scheduled to be held on 05.06.2025, on the ground that the upset price that was fixed for the auction of the house property is on lower side.

3. Earlier, when the writ petition came up for admission, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while ordering notice to the respondents, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions that the petitioners are willing to deposit the outstanding amount of Rs.61,14,563/- in four equal monthly installments, directed the respondents not to finalize the auction. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on several occasions from time to time, extending the interim order, but, the petitioners did not pay the outstanding amount and clear the liability to the Bank, as represented on 05.06.2025 at the time of obtaining interim order. Not even a single pie was deposited to show the bonafides of the petitioners to clear the liability with the Bank. Therefore, on 09.10.2025, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has vacated the interim order dated 05.06.2025 and held that it is open to the respondents to proceed with the matter.

4. Today, when the matter is listed, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners did not deposit the amount. He also submits that the petitioners are not subsequently turning up to give any further instructions to him inspite of fact that the registered letter was addressed to them, which was returned with an endorsement i.e., ‘no sufficient address’.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the proceedings of the auction are stalled because of the pendency of the writ petition.

6. As the petitioners have admittedly committed default in payment of the outstanding dues to the respondents-Bank, the respondents-Bank has sold the secured asset in the auction that was held. Even after several opportunities are given to the petitioners to deposit the balance amount and clear the liability to the Bank, they have failed to avail the same. Therefore, it is obvious that, to stall the proceedings of the E-auction the present writ petition has been deliberately filed and they have successfully managed to stall the auction proceedings by way of obtaining interim order. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any valid legal grounds warranting interference in this writ petition. There is no valid material on record that is placed to prove that the upset price was fixed for a lesser price.

7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 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: 06.11.2025 MDP