Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. Kurra Susila vs The Debt Recovery Tribunal on 29 January, 2026
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
APHC010038152026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3558]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
WRIT PETITION NO: 2455/2026
Between:
1. SMT. KURRA SUSILA, W/O KURRA MARUTHI SANKAR AGED 43
YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE R/O H.NO.43-106/1-52, THOTAVARI
STREET, 6TH LANE, NANDAMURI NAGAR, AJITSINGH NAGAR,
VIJAYAWADA - 15
2. KURRA MARUTHI SANKAR, S/O KURRA VENKATESWARA RAO,
AGED 49 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O H.NO.43-106/1-52,
THOTAVARI STREET, LANE, NANDAMURI NAGAR, AJITSINGH
NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA - 15
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT,
530001
2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
RETAIL ASSETS CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTER (RACPC)-I 1ST
FLOOR, KK TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, NEAR BENZ CIRCLE
VIJAYAWADA CITY, NTR DIST 520001
...RESPONDENT(S):
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, order or direction more particularly one in
2
CMR,J & GTK,J
W.P.No.2455 of 2026
the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring (i) the impugned paper
publication dt.29-12-2025 (published on 30- 12-2025) in Eenadu local
addition viz., Vijayawada Central issued by the 2nd Respondent without
issuing notice to the petitioners to conduct the E- Auction of the subject
property on 16-01-2026, in respect of the house bearing No.43-106/1-52,
Thotavari Street, 6th Lane, Nandamuri Nagar, Ajitsingh Nagar, Vijayawada-
15 fixing the reserve price comparatively less than the prevailing market value
(ii) the action of the 2nd respondent in not passing appropriate orders the
O.T.S application dt.04-12-2025 as directed by this Flonble Fligh Court in
W.P.No.33637/2025 (iii) the action of 2nd respondent in trying to issue the
Sale Certificate in favour of intended auction purchaser without following the
due procedure contemplated under SARFESI Act, 2002 and Rule 9 (1) of
SARFAESI Rules, 2002 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of principles
of natural justice apart from violation of Article 300-A of Constitution of India
and consequently set-aside the impugned E-Auction Dt 16-01-2026, in the
interests of justice and pass
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
Pleased direct the 2nd respondent not to issue Sale Certificate in favour of
intended auction purchaser pursuant to the auction conducted on 16-1-
2026, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following:
3
CMR,J & GTK,J
W.P.No.2455 of 2026
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are the principal borrowers. The present writ petition is filed challenging the paper publication dated 29.12.2025 issued to conduct E-Auction of the subject property, which is the secured asset.
3. At the time of hearing the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners himself has conceded that auction was already held on 16.01.2026 after receiving the aforesaid paper publication dated 29.12.2025. The validity of the said auction is challenged on the ground that the 2 nd respondent did not pass any orders on the OTS application dated 04.12.2025 submitted by the petitioner as directed by this Court in Writ Petition No.33637 of 2025, and also on the ground that the auction was conducted without issuing notice to him as required under Rule 9(1) of SARFAESI Rules, 2022.
4. When the auction was already held and the auction purchaser was declared as highest bidder, the question of setting aside the impugned E-Auction notice dated 16.01.2026 does not arise at all. The petitioner ought to have challenged the said E-Auction before the auction was held. Even though it is stated that he has no knowledge about the said notice, it cannot be a valid ground to entertain the writ petition to set aside the said E-Auction notice after the auction was held.
5. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. If at all the petitioner intends to challenge the validity of the said E-Auction itself, he has to challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum challenging the said E-Auction on the grounds which are now urged in this writ petition, if he is so advised and entitled. There shall be no order as to costs.
4CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.2455 of 2026
7. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J ________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 29-01-2026 BMS