P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J.

1. Proceedings initiated by the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter, 'the bank') against the petitioner company under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, 'the SARFAESI Act') culminated in the 'E-auction Sale Notice to General Public' dated 01.07.2017, whereby the bank proposed to auction the petitioner company's properties, viz., the land admeasuring Ac.3.86 cents at Kolthur Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, with buildings and plant & machinery, for realization of its dues, on 24.07.2017. The present writ petition was filed challenging this notice.

2. By order dated 20.07.2017, this Court observed that as the petitioner had come at the eleventh hour, no reason was made out to grant stay of the sale proposed to be held on 24.07.2017, but in the light of the allegation that the bank had undervalued the property, this Court directed it to receive 25% of the bid amount in the event a sale materialized on 24.07.2017 but restrained it from confirming the sale or taking further proceedings, until further orders.

3. The auction sale was knocked down in favour of a sole bidder on 24.07.2017 and the said auction purchaser company came on record as the fourth respondent.

4. WVMP No.3135 of 2017 was filed by the bank to vacate the order dated 20.07.2017 passed by this Court. Comprehensive arguments having been advanced by all the learned counsel, the matter is amenable to disposal at the admission stage.

5. Facts, to the extent relevant, are as follows: The petitioner company availed a term loan of Rs. 30,00,00,000/- from the bank for financing Phase-I of its bio-pharmaceutical division. It claims that the first phase was completed by 31.03.2012 and an additional term loan was sought from the bank for the second phase of the project. This, however, did come to pass, but a working capital loan of Rs. 12,00,00,000/- for the petitioner company's bio-pharmaceutical division and Rs. 8,00,00,000/- for its agro-division were sanctioned by the bank on 26.08.2013. The petitioner company claims that it was left without requisite finance to complete its second phase and lays the blame for its eventual failure at the bank's door.

6. Be that as it may, but the petitioner company's loan account was ultimately declared a non-performing asset and the bank issued demand notice dated 11.04.2015 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, quantifying the total outstanding dues of the petitioner company at Rs. 48,51,06,225/- with interest from 01.04.2015. Possession notice dated 13.07.2015 was then issued by the bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner company's properties were thereafter brought to sale on several occasions by the bank but without result. Seven attempts were made by the bank in this regard earlier. The impugned e-auction sale notice dated 01.07.2017 represents the eighth attempt by the bank to sell the properties.

7. Significantly, the bank reduced the reserve price for the properties from stage to stage, in the course of its attempts to sell the same, and the reserve price in the impugned auction sale notice stands at Rs. 17,25,00,000/-, as opposed to the reserve price of Rs. 50,90,07,000/- in the first e-auction sale notice dated 25.08.2015. This is the cause for complaint by the petitioner company.

8. It is pertinent to note that e-auction sale notice dated 13.12.2016 preceded the e-auction sale notice dated 14.03.2017, which was issued immediately prior to the impugned e-auction sale notice. The reserve price in the e-auction sale notice dated 13.12.2016 was Rs. 22,80,00,000/- and the sale thereunder was scheduled to be held on 18.01.2017. Challenging the said notice dated 14.03.2017, the petitioner company approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, vide S.A.No.186 of 2017. By Docket Order da