HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA * * * *

WRIT PETITION No.3492 of 2026 Between:

Mr. M.S.Prabhakar and another …Petitioners AND Indian Bank and another …Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 12.02.2026 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

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

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish Yes/No to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

___________________

RENUKA YARA, J IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD * THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA + WRIT PETITION No.3492 of 2026 % Delivered on: 12-02-2026 Mr. M.S.Prabhakar and another …Petitioners AND Indian Bank and another …Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri D. Narendar Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners ^ Counsel for Respondents: Sri Raja Shekar Rao Salvaji, learned Standing Counsel Gist :

> Head Note :

? Cases Referred :

1. (2022) 8 SCC 516

2. 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4985

3. (2023) 10 SCC 60

4. (1976) 3 S.C.R

5. Civil Appeal Nos.5542-5543 of 2023

6. MANU/SC/1489/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.3492 of 2026

12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 Between:

Mr. M.S.Prabhakar and another …Petitioners AND Indian Bank and another …Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri D. Narendar Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Raja Shekar Rao Salvaji, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire record.

2. The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“… to issue an order, direction or writ more so in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing the Notice of Sale dated 31.12.2025 (Impugned Sale Notice”) under Section 52(1)(b) and 52(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) for the auction of property comprising of land and building in Sy.No.321, 325/5, 321/6, 321/1/A, admeasuring 4600 sq.yards at A-1 and A-2 Electronics Complex, Kushaiguda Hyderabad (“Schedule Property”) as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently set aside all proceedings/actions (if any, including issuance of any sale certificates) issued by the Respondents pursuant to the said Impugned Sale Notice and ..…”.

Case of the writ petitioners:

3. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioners are erstwhile Managing Director and guarantor of M/s. Kadevi Industries Limited, a public limited company. The said company availed credit facilities under consortium lending in the year 2008. Further, in the year 2008, respondents sanctioned a separate midterm loan of Rs.20 Crores to the corporate debtor for capital expenditure on plant and machinery outside the consortium arrangement. For said midterm loan, the petitioners have given the land and building as security in Kushaiguda unit of Kadevi Industries Limited, apart from machinery in Kushaiaguda unit of said Kadevi Industries Limited. Respondents-bank declared the Kadevi’s account as Non-Performing Asset (‘NPA’) in the year 2015 in violation of guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’). There were no outstanding interest dues towards mid-term loans or CC limits. However, there is unjust classification of Kadevi Industries Limited as NPA. Due to said classification as NPA, Kadevi Industries Limited could not access financial assistance from other banking and financial institutions. Consequently, there were cash flow issues to Kadevi Industries Limited, finally culminating into respondents-Bank initiating proceeding under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), by the application bearing No.CP.(IB) No.10/7/HDB/2017 under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) before the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’). The petitioners challenged the action of respondents vide W.P.No.28827 of 2