APHC010061682026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 3541/2026 Between: 1. M/S. SUBRAMANYESWARA SWAMY RICE MILL, REP. BY ITS MG. PARTNER VUDATHA VENU GOPAL, S/O. LATE VUDATHA PEDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 104, SRI ANJANEYAM APARTMENT, STAMBALAGARUVU, NEAR RAMALAYAM, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. 2. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER DR.NO.6-3- 1109/1, 2ND FLOOR, NAVABHARATH CHAMBERS, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD - 500 082, TELANGANA, INDIA. 3. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK, VIJAYAWADA BRANCH, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SITUATED AT DR.NO.29-4-19, KODANDARAMIREDDY STREET, REHAMAN PARK, OPP.WATER TANK. GOVERNOR PET, VIJAYAWADA - 520 002. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Pre-Sale Notice dated 24.11.2025 and Auction Notice dated 06.01.2026 proposed e auction scheduled on 12-02-2026 in respect of the mortgaged properties belonging to petitioner firm issued by the respondents as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the SARFAESI Act, and consequently set aside the Pre-Sale Notice dated 24.11.2025 and Auction Notic4 dated 06.01.2026 proposed e auction scheduled on 12-02-2026, IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 stay all further proceedings pursuant to the said Pre-Sale Notice dated 24.11.2025 and Auction Notice dated 06.01.2026. , including the proposed e auction scheduled on 12- 02-2026 in respect of the mortgaged properties belonging to Subrahmanyeswara Swamy Rice Mill, Maruthi Nagar Road, Gujjanagundia, Guntur, and pass appropriate orders pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KANADHI BHATLA SRINIVASA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 The Court made the following ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) This writ petition for Mandamus is filed to declare the pre-sale notice dated 24.11.2025 and auction notice dated 06.01.2026 proposing to hold auction of secured asset dated 12.02.2026 as illegal and contrary to Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) and consequently prayed to set aside the said notices dated 24.11.2025 and 06.01.2026. 2. Heard Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mallampalli Srinivas, learned Central Government counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri P.Badrinath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3. 3. As the principal borrower, who is M/s.Subramanyeswara Swamy Rice Mill, represented by its Managing Partner, failed to pay the loan amount availed from the 2nd respondent – Bank, the Bank has initiated measures under Section SARFAESI Act to sell the secured asset for realization of the loan amount. Earlier, notice as contemplated under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act were issued when the original Managing Partner by name Vudatha Peddanna, of the principal borrower M/s.Subramanyeswara Swamy Rice Mill was alive. The said notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act were also given to his guarantors, who are also the co- 4 borrowers of the loan. Thereafter, the said notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to all of them on 12.04.2023, and notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 22.06.2023. Thereafter, the Managing Partner of the Principal borrower died on 20.04.2024. After his demise, the Bank proceeded to sell the secured asset in the public auction. The said auction was questioned in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.28333 of 2025 by the then Managing Partner of the Principal Borrower by name Vudatha Rajendra Prasad, on the ground that fresh notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act were not given to the legal heirs of the deceased Managing Partner of the Principal borrower. In the said writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submitted that the auction could not take place as no bidders participated in the auction and he has given an undertaking that, if at all fresh auction is held, the Bank would follow the procedure prescribed under law by issuing notices to the legal heirs of the deceased borrower. Recording the said submission, the writ petition was closed. 4. Thereafter, the Bank proposed to proceed with the sale of the secured asset. Now again, the present writ petition is filed questioning the said proposed auction on the same ground, that fresh notice is not given to the legal heirs of the deceased Managing Partner of the Principal borrower. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that they have given fresh notices to all the present co-borrowers on 24.11.2025, and 5 thereafter, they are proceeding with the auction. The fact that the notice under Section 13(8) was issued to all the co-borrowers on 24.11.2025 by the Bank, is not disputed by the petitioner. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that fresh notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act were not issued. So, it vitiates the proposed auction and on that ground, he challenges the proposed auction in the present writ petition. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court rendered in the case of S.Suhaina Banu and Ors. Vs. Indian Bank ARM Branch and Ors.,1 wherein it was stated that notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act have to be given afresh to the legal heirs after the death of the principal borrower. Learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, countering the said argument, relied on the judgment of the High Court of Jammu And Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar rendered in the case of Sundri and Ors. Vs. The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. And Others,2 to contend that no such fresh notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act are required to be given to the legal heirs when notices were already given to the principal borrower. 5. In the instant case, the important fact to be noticed here is that all the legal heirs of the original Managing Partner or the Principal borrower, Vudatha Peddanna are also on record as co-borrowers of the loan. Therefore, they had received notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act even 1 2011(1) CWC 448 : MANU/TN/3149/2010 2 AIR 2025 J&K 148 : MANU/JK/0516/2025 6 during the lift time of the Managing Partner of the principal borrower. It is not as though they are not aware of the fact that the Bank is proposing to sell the secured asset in the auction for realization of the loan amount. Being co- borrowers when they are aware of the proposal of the bank to sell the secured asset, in our considered view, fresh notice in their capacity as legal heirs is not required to be given. 6. The very purpose and object of giving notice to the legal heirs is to enable them to know about the proposal of the Bank to sell the secured asset and to provide an opportunity to them to redeem the mortgaged property. The said object stands fulfilled when they are aware of the proposal of the Bank to sell the secured asset in their capacity as co-borrowers. They cannot insist for issuance of notice both in their capacity as co-borrowers and in the capacity of legal heirs of the Managing Partner of the principal borrower. Therefore, fresh notice in the said facts and circumstances of the case is not required to be given to them, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Further, as per the judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Enakulam rendered in the case of Abhijith B., vs. Bank of Maharashtra, represented by its Chief Manager and Authorized Officer3, it was held that fresh notice to legal heirs at every stage of the matter, when the Bank proposes to sell the property, is not required to be given. Suffice it to hold that when legal heirs, 3 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 15048 7 even in the capacity of co-borrowers, are aware of the proposal of the Bank. It is sufficient compliance with the requirement of law. 8. In the instant case, before proceeding with the fresh auction, notice under Section 13(8) afresh was also given to the co-borrowers, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Managing Partner of the principal borrower. Therefore, as per undertaking given by the Bank in the earlier writ petition, as noticed supra, notice as per the procedure prescribed under law has been given. 9. In the above cited judgment of the Kerala High Court at para No.10 of the judgment, it was held that that “as the initial demand notice was duly served during the borrower’s lifetime and the statutory 60-day period expired without repayment, the creditor is legally entitled to proceed with the possession of secured assets without issuing additional notices to the legal heirs. It is further held that based on the facts and circumstances, supported by relevant judicial precedents, this Court finds no necessity for issuing a second round of notices under the Act, as per the procedure under Sections 13(2), 13(4) and 14 , as it were validly initiated and served during the life time of the deceased”. 10. In view of the law laid down in the judgment of the High Court of Kerala, we hold that fresh notices to the legal heirs are not required to be issued, and the petitioner herein cannot seek to impeach the proceedings relating to the 8 fresh auction proposed by the Bank as a secured creditor on that ground. Therefore, we see no valid legal ground warranting interference by this Court. The writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Resultantly, 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: 09.02.2026 KA 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 3541/2026 Date: 09.02.2026 KA