*THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO % Dated 16.06.2025 WP.No.4623 of 2025 BETWEEN # M/s Classic Chemicals Limited … Petitioner And $ Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others … Respondents WP.No.4373 of 2025 BETWEEN # State Bank of India, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And $ Union of India and others. … Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner: 1. Sri Raghu Gurram in WP.No.4623 of 2025

2. Sri N.Meher Prasad in WP No.4373 of 2025 ^ Counsel for respondent No.2: 1. Sri N.Meher Prasad in WP.No.4623 of 2025 ^ Counsel for respondent No.3 & 4 2. Sri S.Lohit in WP.No.4623 of 2025 ^ Counsel for respondent No.1: 4. Ms. Jhansi representing Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of India in WP.No.4373 of 2025 ^ Counsel for respondent No.3: 5. Sri S.Lohit in WP.No.4373 of 2025 ^ Counsel for respondent No.4: 6. Sir Raghu Gurram in WP.No.4373 of 2025

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1. (2023) 2 SCC 168

2. 2013 10 SCC 83

3. 2023 SCC OnLine All 703

4. (2022) 3 High Court Cases (Del) 482

5. SLP (Civil) No.330 of 2017 of Supreme Court of India dated 10.10.2024

6. 2013 SCC OnLine TS 635

7. (1991) 3 SCC 273

8. 2014 (5) SCC 660 Paras 16 & 25

9. 2014 (5) SCC 610 Para Nos.42 & 43

10. (1976) 3 SCC 37 11. (2021) 7 SCC 369 12. (2024) 6 SCC 641 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD *****

WP.Nos.4623 & 4373 of 2025 WP.No.4623 of 2025 BETWEEN M/s Classic Chemicals Limited … Petitioner And Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others … Respondents WP.No.4373 of 2025 BETWEEN State Bank of India, Kachiguda, Hyderabad .… Petitioner And Union of India and others.

… Respondents Date of Judgment Pronounced: 16.06.2025 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes _____________________

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO WP.No.4623 OF 2025 And WP.No.4373 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER: (per Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao)

WP.No.4623 of 2025

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the auction purchaser (M/S Classic Chemicals Limited) in the nature of Writ of Certiorari for setting aside the impugned order, dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) at Kolkata in Appeal No.29 of 2021 and to quash the same, confirm the auction sale conducted on 22.03.2013 as valid and in accordance with The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act, 2002’) and the Rules made thereunder.

WP.No.4373 of 2025

2. This Writ Petition is filed by State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Hyderabad to issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and to call for the records of the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata in Appeal No.56 of 2022 against the order dated 05.03.2021 made in S.A.No.1115 of 2017 passed by the DRT-II, Hyderabad contrary to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and to set aside the same.

3.1 Learned counsel for auction purchaser in W.P.No.4623 of 2025 submits that on 14.02.2013 respondent No.2-Bank has issued e-auction sale notice. On 15.02.2013 e-auction was published in news paper. On 15.03.2013, the auction purchaser has remitted Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs.51,50,000/- by RTGS. On 22.03.2013, the petitioner was declared as highest bidder at Rs.5,16,00,000/-. On 22.03.2013, a cheque for Rs.77,50,000/- towards 25% of the sale consideration was deposited with the Bank as per Rule 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2002’).

3.2 The deposit of cheque towards 25% of sale consideration is not contrary to Rule 9(3) of the 2002 Rules. As can be seen from the