N. \ - APHC010465772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [^0 0 THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEART^ WRIT PETITION NO: 23580 OF 2025 Between: 1. Sri Kanakadurga Aqua Agencies, Rep. Partner C H M K Raju, D.No.1- 9, Penumantra, West Godavari District. 2. C H M K Raju, Aged 43 years, S/o. Venkatraju, D.No.2-117, Vadalivanipalem, Palakol Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Petitioners AND 1. ICICI BANK, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Palakol Branch,Palakol Palakol Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Respondent Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith pleased to issue writ or direction more particularly praying that in the the High Court may be one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the auction proceedings of the Respondent Bank the schedule properties during pendency of S.A.No. 186/2025 arbitrary, consequently direct the Debt Recovery Tribunal to sell is illegal Visakhapatnam to -1 adjudicate the petition filed by the possible. petitioners m S.A.No. 186/2025 as early as jA NO: 1 OF 9091; "-r Petition under Section 151 ^ affidavit filed i 0^ stay of auction CPC praying that in the circumstances 'n support Of the petition, the High Court on the n , ' P^-'ding adjudication on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Stated may be pleased to of S.A.No. 186/2025 in VIshakhapatnam. Counsel for the Petitioners: Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following SRI PECHATHY RANGA RAO SRI G ROHIT order: APHC010465772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3524] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 23580/2025 Between: 1.SRI KANAKADURGA AQUA AGENCIES, REP. PARTNER C H M K RAJU, D.NO.1-9, PENUMANTRA, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2.C H M K RAJU, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.VENKATRAJU, D.NO.2-117, PALAKOL MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI VADALIVANIPALEM, DISTRICT. ...PETITiONER(S) AND 1. ICICI BANK, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Palakol Branch,Palakol, Palakol Mandal, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT 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 pleased topleased to issue writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the auction proceedingsof the Respondent Bank to sell the schedule properties during pendency of S.A.No. 186/2025 is illegal arbitrary, consequently direct the Debt Recovery Visakhapatnam to adjudicate the petition filed by the petitioners m S.A.No.186/2025 as early as possible and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Tribunal 2 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 grant stay of auction proceedings pending 186/2025 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal pass adjudiction of S.A.No. Vishakhapatnam and Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.PECHATHYRANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 23580/2025 ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J) Heard Sri P.Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.Rohith, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. In the first call on this case, we passed the following order; 2. “It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent - ICICI Bank that previously also in addition to W.P.No.7754 of 2025 (at page No.41), the petitioners filed the second writ petition in W.P.No.25242 of 2024 before this Court. 2. The said fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition. 3. Sri P.Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not aware, if this disclosure was made in previous writ petition in W.P.No.7754 of 2025. 4. Post the matter at 11.30 a.m along with the record of W.P.No.7754 of 2025.” 3. The matter was again taken up along with the record of W.P.No.7754 of 2025. 4. This writ petition has been filed for writ of mandamus declaring the auction proceedings of the respondent bank said to be scheduled on 04.09.2025, to sell the schedule properties during pendency of S.A.No.186 of 2025 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam (in short ‘DRT’) as illegal and arbitrary, as also for direction to the said DRT to adjudicate the S.A.No.186 of 2025 as early as possible. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that being aggrieved from the measures taken under Section 13 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short ‘SARFAESI Act’) i.e., possession notice dated 05.10.2024, pre-sale notice dated 4 09.10.2024 and E-Auction notice dated 26.03.2025 and the demand notices, issued by the respondent bank, the petitioners filed SA.No.186 of 2025 (in ‘SA’) which is pending before the DRT but during pendency of the SA, the respondent Bank is proceeding further by taking coercive measures to conduct short auction on 26.03.2025. Then the petitioner filed W.P.No.7754 of 2025 co-ordinate Bench directed the DRT to in which a pass appropriate orders in I.A.No.1121 of 2025 and till such time the status-quo was directed to be maintained. He submits that so, the respondent Bank did not conduct auction on 26.03.2025. The DRT also did not pass any order in the petitioner’s pending I.A.No.1121 of 2025. Bank again fixed 16.04.2025 for auction but it The was not conducted on that date. He submits that on 03.09.2025 again an auction notice has been affixed on the petitioner’s door, scheduled for 04.09.2025. So, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the DRT may be directed to consider and pass the orders in the stay petition filed in SA before the DRT and till then the auction proceedings be directed to be stayed, or the respondent No.1 submits that previously with respect to the same subject matter i.e., realisation of the loan amount by the bank, the same petitioner i.e., petitioner No.2, herein (managing partner of present petitioner No.1), being aggrieved by the initiation of the 7. Learned counsel auction proceedings/notice, filed W.P.No.25242 of 2024. A Co-ordinate bench passed the interim order dated 06.11.2024, while issuing notice to the respondents, which reads as under: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5 ■ The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the act of the respondent-Bank in notifying the mortgage property for sale is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Sarfaesi Act, 2002. The procedures as contemplated under Sections 13(2), 13(4) & 14 of the SARFAESI Act have not been complied with. He further submit that the symbolic notice, dated 07.03.2024 and the auction sale notification notifying the mortgage assets for sale by way of auction are per se illegal. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the prima facie, opinion that the matter requires consideration. In view of the actions of the 2 respondent-Bank being in violation of principles of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to pass a conditional order of stay. There shall be an interim stay of the auction/sale of the subject property subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by 07.11.2024, and paying a further sum within a period of six (06) weeks from today. The petitioner is at liberty to pay the remaining amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in a staggered manner, at any rate, the same shall be deposited within six (06) weeks. In the event the amounts as directed are not deposited with the respondent- Bank, the interim order granted today shall stand revoked automatically.” The same petitioner No.2 herein, as petitioner No.2 along with the present petitioner No.1, of which petitioner No.2 is the Managing Partner, filed W.P.No.7754 of 2025 for the same prayers as made in the present 8. W.P.No.23580 of 2025. The grievance raised in W.P.No.7754 of 2025 was with respect to same recovery proceedings, the only thing being the different dates of auction, raising the same grievance about the stay petition being pending before the DRT in the SA. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order. dated 25.03.2025 disposing of W.P.No.7754 of 2025 as under:- “The petitioners claim that they have already preferred a Securitization Application bearing S.A.No.186 of 2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam on 14.03.2025 along with an interim application for stay vide I.A.No.1121 of 2025, which has not been considered and only notice has been issued. 2. It is stated that in the meantime, the respondent Bank is proceeding to dispose of the property by way of auction, which would render the S.A. filed before the D.R.T. infructuous. 3. Be that as it may, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the D.R.T. to pass appropriate orders on merits in I.A.No.1121 of 2025 in 2 S.A.No.186 of 2025 preferably, within a period of three (3) weeks from today. In the meantime and till such time i.A.No.1121 of 2025 is considered, status quo be maintained with regard to the possession of the petitioners. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.” 6 9. The proceedings of W.P.No.25242 of 2024 have not been disclosed in the presem Writ Petition No.23580 of 2025. The same was aiso not disclosed in W.P.No.7754 of 2025. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners tries submitting that W.P.No.25242 of 2024 to defend such non-disclosure was filed at the time when the SA was not filed before the DRT, and also that he (counsel) W.P.No.25242 of 2024 and the interim that the petitioners deposited the was not aware of the filing of order passed therein. He further submits amount pursuant to the interim order dated 06.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.25242 of 2024, and placed before US, photocopy of alleged summary of account, as on 15.11.2024 by ICICI Bank. The taken on record. same is 11. Sri G.Rohith, learned counsel for the complete compliance has not been made by the petitioners interim order dated 06.11.2024 in W.P.No.25242 of 2024 depositing some amount (i.e., 5 lakhs) and not the other balance was also directed, vide interim order, to be deposited in six weeks. He submits that the statement of account evidences only part compliance. Prima-facie it appears that the petitioners did respondent-Bank submits that the and only part of the was complied by amount which 12. not comply with the interim order dated 06.11.2024 in W.P.No.25242 of 2024, and the fact disclosure/suppression of material W.P.Nos.7754 of 2025 and the remains of non facts in the subsequently instituted present one. Even in SA and the I.A.Nos. 1121 of 7 2025 & 1900 of 2025 filed in SA, copies of which have been annexed with the present W.P., there is no disclosure of W.P.No.25242 of 2024. The petitioners must have disclosed all the material facts. Filing of W.P.No.25242 of 2024, the interim order passed therein and its compliance/non- 13. compliance is suppression of material fact. \ There is another important aspect. The first W.P.No.25242 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner, by name ‘Sri Chinthalapati Murali Krishnam Raju’ that is writing full name. In subsequent writ petitions, W.P.Nos.7754 of 2025 & 23580 of 2025, it is only the short form of the name ‘CH.M.K.Raju’ has been mentioned and that too, making himself as petitioner No.2 and Sri Kanakadurga Aqua Agencies, represented by partner CH.M.K.Raju, as petitioner No.1. 14. \ We are of the considered view that the petitioners have wilfully suppressed 15. the material facts. The petitioners also succeeded in passing of the order dated 25.03.2025 in W.P.No.7754 of 2025, in their favour. It is well settled in law that the person who approaches this Court under 16. Article 226 of Constitution of India, has to approach with clean hands. We dismiss the writ petition and under these circumstances, to curb such practices at the instance of the unscrupulous petitioners, we impose costs of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh only) on the petitioners. 17. The costs shall be paid to Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee at Andhra Pradesh High Court, within a period of 15 days from today, failing which the Registrar (Judicial) shall take appropriate steps to recover the 18. same in accordance with law. 8 19. Let a copy of this order be placed and 7754 of 2025. on the record of W.P.Nos.25242 of 2024 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. MEMO OF COSTS WP No. 5257 OF 2025 Cost Quantified By Court (That the writ petitioners is directed to Rs.1,00,000/-( Rupees One Lakh only) Committee, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, today. pay costs of to the High Court Legal Services Amaravathi, within 15 days from Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 0" SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Sri Kanakadurga Aqua Agencies, Rep. Partner C 9, Penumantra, West Godavari District. 2. C H M K Raju, Aged 43 Vadalivanipalem, Palakol Mandal, West Godavari 3. The Registrar(Judicial). High Court of A.P. at Amaravati. 4. The Secretary. High Court Legal Service Committee, at Amaravati. 5. One CC to Sri. Pechathy Ranga Rao Advocate 6. One CC to Sri. G Rohit Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies GSC H M K Raju, D.No.1- years, S/o. Venkatraju, D.No.2-117 District. High Court of A.P. [OPUC] HIGH COURT DATED.04/09/2025 \ ORDER WP NO. 23580 OF 2025 Of AND;/: 17 SEP 20?5 rrtntSecti*ii. *7 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS