The High Court · 2025

2. KPIU WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES, Represented by its Authorized Signatory, [\/r. Srinivas Bandoju. Address.Plot No. 40, 41 , 3rd Floor, Venture East Plaza Road No.2, Financial District, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500032. ..,..PETITIONERS AND

1. UNION OF lNDlA, Rep. by rts Fanance Secretary, New Delhi - 110001. 2. RESERVE BANK OF lNDlA, Having its Head Offrce at ShahidBhagat Singh Marg. Mumbai - 400001.

3. UNION BANK OF lNDlA, SAM Branch, Andhra Bank Building, 3rd Floor, Sultan Bazaar,Koti, Hyderabad - 500095. ..RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order, or direction, one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, to set-aside the impugned E- Auction sale notice dated 12.08.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 herein to conduct auction for sale of the properties mentioned therein on 29.08.2025 as the same is issued against the rules framed under Rule 8 of the Security lnterest (Enforcement) Rules. 2002, not only the Respondent No 3 herein did not issue the mandatory 30 days' notice period or paper public lion for the combined auction to be held for the first time, but also the Responcr.nt No.3 herein wrthout any justification or consultation, and without conductinc the proper mandatory valuation. hacl reduced the reserve price from Rs 26,39,70,0001 to Rs.19.90.00,003/- as specified tinder the terms and con,i iirns of the impugned notice and th€ same k arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutiorr rl in violation of the principles of na:uritl justice and Articles 14 and 2l of the C, rstitution of lndia. l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Pelition [Jnrler Section 151 CPC praying that in the ( ,rcumstances stated in the affidavit file:d in support of the petition, the High C()Ljrt may be pleased to suspend the o6reration of the impugned auction notice d::ed 12.08.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 herein to conduct the aucti:r of the sale of the properties menlioned therein or direct the Respondent No.l herein not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioners herein. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI KRISHNA GRANDHI, LE,\RNED SENTOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING Ms. TANYA KANWAR AND E]fiA BAHL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : LEARNED DEP[, fY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI SANTHOSH REDt,y The Court made the following ORDER ,..ii.*;t;atty ...,r .',/ THE HON'BLE SRI .IUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 25906 0F 2025 ORDER ber the Han'bte Sti Jl1strce AbttoLat,.tT Ktln.rr s,rrdlrtr/ This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the non-consideration of securitization application preferred by the petitioners before the Debts Recovery Tribunal on the ground that there is no Presiding Officer.

2. Heard Sri Krishna Grandhi learned Senior Counscl representing Ms. Tanya Kanwar & Ekta Bahi, learned counsel lor the petitioners; learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondcr-rt Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Santhosh Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the petitioners have availed loan facility from the then Andhra Bank, and owning to financial crisis, they could not clear the said loan and therefore, the petitioners @\..:;..r,:, \tt*} \ 2 accounts were declared as Non_pc ,forn-ring Assets. Subscclucntly, the Andhra Balk has beerr mergcd rvith the Union Bank of India and the Union Etrtnk of India has initiated proceedings under Sec.r rritization and Reconstructior-r of Financial Assets anr] Enforccment of Security InteresL Act, 2OO2 (for short, ,the Act, 2OO2,\ by issuir-rg notice under Section 13(2) of thc .act on 2I.O2.2022 and the petitioners havc submitted a proposal for One Tirnc Scttlemcnt on 20.O2.2025, whereir, the pctitioners havc oller-ecl Rs.65 crores to be paid w,it,rrn a reasonable pcriod of 1.ime. 4 . l.earned counse 1 ibr the petition crs had further contencted that the respondent-Bank rvas ;leased to accept the proposal submitted by the petitioncl.s and strangely granted oniy one day's time to clear Rs.65 crores, ulde tl-reir proceedings dated 27.O3.2025. As reasone ble time was not granted to the petitioners, they could nct clear the loan amount under one time settlement. Ir those set of. circumstances, the respondents havc issue d E_auction sale i i ; l i ] I l I . i '-i 5," x-.:. / l noticc on 12.08.2025 fixing the auction on 29.Q8.2O25 '"vitl'rout follor,ting Rule 8(5) and 8(6) of the Security Intercst (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Aggricved by the same, thc petitioners have approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by liling securitization application under Section i7 of the Act, 2002 and the securitrzation application prelerred by the petitioners could not be taken up for hearing as thc Presiding Officer is on leave. As the auction is scheduled to bc held today, the petitioners are contending that 1et the auction be conducted subject to result of the securitization application preferred by the petitioncrs. Since the Presiding Ofhcer is not there, the petitioners shall not bc put to irreparable loss and the relore, appropriate orders be passed in the present rvrit petition b1. dirccting thc respondents not to finalize the auction till the Debts Recovery Tribunai adjudicates thc securitization application preferred by the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that in view of acceptance of One Time E-\9-':i+flif4 'ri ,'. - -:- 11 , !. 4 Settierner-rt by thc respondent-Bank. if oppoltrrnrtv is given to the petitioners r hev u,ould pa-v reasonalblt_. Rs.65 c r<trcs Lo thc respondcnts, rvithin r ll11' (04) u,ccks In complizrnr:r: u'itl-r thi:ir acceptancc ol One '[rrne Settlemcnt

6. Lcarncd counscl for the resporLclent-Bank had t:or-itcnrlccl that thc acceptancc of One Timc Settlcmcnt giver-r bv thc rcspondent-Bank on 27.O3.2O25 is alreaclv r:anr:cllcd l>r, thc rcspondent-Bank on 2',.O5.2025 and il tht: 1tt:titioncrs are proposing another One fime Settlemcr.rt, thcn thc :;ccuritizatior-r application of thc 1;ctitioners would bc scnt tc, Board of Dircctors and an apltropriate dccisit;r-r u,ould l--,c 1 al<cn thereon.

7. l'his Court, having considered the .: r,al submissions made b-,., boll-r thc parties, is of the vierv tLL;r1 the petitioners havc :rlrc:rd.y prelcrrecl securitizatiorr application under Section 1 / ol thc AcL, 2OO2 before the Debts Recove6, Tribunal and lheir securitization application is not being consider-r-'c[ because the Presiding Officer .:s on today is on w ) leave. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the present writ petitior-r is disposed of with an obselation that the auction, u,hich is schcduled to be held today i.e.

29.O8.2O25, shall not be finalized and the same shall bc subject to outcome ol the orders to be passed by the Debts Iiecovery Tribunal on the securitization applicatior-r prelerred b-v the petitioners.

8. With thc above observations, this Writ petition is disltoscd of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscelianeous applications pending, rl anv, shall stand closed. SDL D ABDULLA KHAN S TANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// To

1. The Finance Secretary, UNION OF lNDIA, New D 2. The RESERVE BANK OF lNDlA, Having its Head Singh tvlarg, l\Iumbai - 400001.

3. The UNION BANK OF lNDIA, SAM Branch, Andhra Bank Building, 3rd Floor, Sultan Bazaar,Koti, Hyderabad - 500095.

4. One CC to tt4s. TANYA KANWAR AND EKTA BAHL, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDlA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI SANTHOSH REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies SECTION OFFICER - 110001 tce at ShahidBhagat SA GJ o. C.C. TOD.{\ \ t \E iA :7 l, : "t l t n L t ?ffi z() j-'// -.-t : -L !/ ' i{g..:1i:tr#,}Z , / HIGH COURT DATED:2910812025 ORDER WP.No.25906 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ? F o