f APHC010119182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) s THURSDAY. THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE MRJUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF AND HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6425 OF 2025 Between: 1. The Authorised Officer, City Union Bank Limited Credit Recovery and Management Department Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam-612001. 2. The Branch Manager, City Union Bank Limited Arundelpet Branch Situated at Kalpataru. H.No.6-9-24, 9/1 Arundelpet Guntur-522002. ...Petitioners AND Gayathri Cotton Ginning Mills, Rep. by its Managing Partner Rajasekhara Reddy, R/o. D.No.3-82/1, Vinayaka Temple Center Pedaparimi Village, Thuluru Mandal Guntur-522236 . Sri Challa ...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 to issue Writ or Order or Direction more particularly the one in the nature Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to IA.No.3554/2024 in SA.No.601/2024 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam to quash the order passed by DRT, Visakhapatnam in IA.No.3554/2024 in SA.No.601/2024 dated 07-02-2025 and as illegal, high handed, arbitrary, erroneous and against to the principles of natural justice and consequentially to dismiss the said lA.No.3554/2024 in SA.No.601/2024. lA 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 to grant interim suspension of operation of the impugned order passed in IA.No.3554/2024 dated 07-02-2025 pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT.CH LAXMi CHAYA Counsel for the Respondent SRI S. DILIP JAVA RAM . The Court made the following order: 1 HG & RRR,J W.P.No.6425 of 2025 APHC010119182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3446] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6425/2025 Between: The Authorised Officer and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Gayathri Cotton Ginning Mills Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.CH LAXMI CHAYA Counsel for the Respondent: - 1.S DILIP JAYA RAM ...RESPONDENT HQ & RRR,J W.P.No.6425 of 2025 2 The Court made the following order; (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mrs. CH. CH. Lakshmi Chaya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. Dilip Jaya Ram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The petitioners herein had initiated proceedings, against the 2. respondent herein, under the SARFAESI Act. The respondent had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam against the said proceedings, by way of S.A.No.601 of 2024 (DRT, Visakhapatnam). The respondent also filed, I.A.No.3554 of 2024, in S.A.No.601 of 2024 for staying further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, by an order dated 07.02.2025, had stayed all further proceedings, under the SARFAESI Act, including the auction that was held on 21.11.2024, till disposal of Securitization Appeal. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court. In the present case, sale notice dated 21.09.2024, had been 3. issued, fixing the date of auction as 21.11.2024. In the auction conducted on that day, one item of schedule property mentioned in the schedule of the said notice was sold and the other properties were not sold. 3 HCJ & RRR,J W.P.No.6425of2025 4. The Debts Recovery Tribunal held that as per provisions of Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules. 2022 separate notice (30 days) was not issued by the respondent and that the respondent-bank had issued combined notice under Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest Rules which is not in accordance with law. On that basis, the Debts Recovery Tribunal had stayed all further proceedings, till the disposal of the Securitization Appeal. 5. Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that this view of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Rajendran vs. KPK Oils & Protlens India (P) Ltd.^ 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case had held that the gap of 30 days between the notice under Rule 8(6) and the notice under Rule 9(1) is not mandatory and any deviation from the said requirement would vitiate the proceedings. not 7. A Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 16.10.2025, in W.P.No. 19059 of 2024, following the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had permitted auction proceedings to go on. ^2025 see Online Se 2036 HCJ & RRR,J W.P.No.6425 of 2025 4 m In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order of stay granted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 07.02.2025 with a further direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to expeditiously dispose of Securitization Appeal No.601 of 2024. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed Sd/- N NAGAMR:1A ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . One CC to Smt. Ch. Laxmi Chaya, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri S. Dilip Jaya Ram, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies Cnr \ ^ HIGH COURT DATED:30/10/2025 ORDER WP NO. 6425 OF 2025 [0 4 NOV 2025^^ 'ysCjirrentSectioiu^y ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS