1. 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 2021 before this Court and this Court passed interim orders dated 13.12.2021 and 02.04.2024 restraining coercive actions against personal guarantees pending adjudication. The NCLT vide order dated 15.03.2017, admitted said CIRP, and initiated CIRP process against Kadevi Industries Limited as per the procedure under IBC. Then, an order was passed on 23.02.2018, ordering liquidation of Kadevi Industries Limited. Respondents relinquished security interest over certain current assets, but retained rights in fixed assets, which includes the land and buildings in Sy.Nos.321, 325/5, 321/6, 321/1/A admeasuring 4600 Sq.Yds. at Kushaiguda, Hyderabad (‘schedule property’).

4. On 03.12.2025, the liquidation process came to an end under Section 54 of IBC and Kadevi Industries Limited stood dissolved, i.e. ceased to exist as a legal entity. The liquidator was discharged from all responsibilities under IBC. On 31.12.2025, the respondents issued the impugned sale notice dated 31.12.2025 for auction of the schedule property. The NCLT becomes Coram Non Judice post-dissolution process and therefore, cannot initiate further proceedings under IBC or its framework. Subsequent to the discharge of liquidator, bank cannot assume the role of liquidator or invoke IBC provisions to sell the schedule property. Respondents-bank can only resort the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (‘SARFAESI Act’) Act, 2002, as applicable law, but not IBC. The auction was scheduled on 21.01.2026. On said date, petitioner No.1 underwent treatment and therefore, was unaware of the auction. After petitioner No.1 got discharged from hospital on 22.01.2026, enquiry was made for the purpose of repayment of loans and redemption of mortgage. At that time, it is learnt that auction was conducted and a bidder was selected. However, the sale certificate has not been issued.

5. The petitioners plead that as per impugned sale notice and terms and conditions, it is issued under IBC, but also states that the procedure under Rule 6 and Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, has been adopted. The respondents, by issuing a 15 day notice, have violated the mandatory 30 day notice. The actions of the respondents are arbitrary, unjust, and therefore, led to filing of the writ petition seeking to set aside the impugned sale notice dated 31.12.2025.

Case of the respondents - Bank:

6. The respondents filed counter questioning the maintainability of the writ petition for want of locus standi by the writ petitioners. It is pleaded that under IBC, right to initiate or challenge proceedings flows from existing legal interest recognized by statute, but not from past association, status, or equity. Once the CIRP proceedings are initiated, the Board of Directors stand suspended under Section 17 of the IBC i.e., the promoters, directors, and shareholders ceased to have representational capacity in relation to the corporate debtor or its assets, more so, after dissolution of the corporate debtor under Section 54 of IBC. There is a clear distinction between assets forming part of liquidation under Section 36 and secured assets retained by secured creditors under Section 52 of the IBC. When a secured creditor declines to relinquish rights to the liquidator during liquidation process, the secured creditor retains independent right to realize the security interest in accordance with applicable law. In such situation, a third party does not have locus to question such realization. As per Section 29A of IBC, the directors or promoters of the corporate debtor do not have right to challenge the sale on account of disqualification. Regulation 37(8) of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, prohibit transfer of secured assets to persons rendered ineligible under the Code, i.e., the directors, promoters, and other connected persons. The petitioners herein are neither corporate debtor nor aggrieved parties with respect to secured assets and therefore, lack locus to maintain the present writ petition.

7. According to the respondents, the impugned sale notice discloses the source of authority retained by respondents under Section 52(1)(b) of the IBC. Respondents did not relinquish the security interest and after dissolution of corporate debtor under Section 54 of IBC. There is a subsisting right for realizing the security asset by the secured creditor. Therefore, respondents-Bank, in its capacity as secured creditor under Section 52 of the IBC, proposed to realize the secured asset. For said purpose, respondents adopted the procedure prescribed under SARFAESI Act and such a course of action is in conformity with Section 52(4) of the IBC. There is no ambiguity about jurisdiction or source of power of the secured creditor. The dissolution of the corporate debtor extinguishes its right under the IBC while expressly preserving the independent enforcement rights of secured creditors.

8. Respondents to the allegations made by the writ petitioners about unjust classification of Kadevi Industries as NPA, the respondents claim the same classification was done in accordance with applicable RBI guidelines and statutory norms. With respect to applicability of the IBC and the SARFAESI Act, it is pleaded that once the secured creditor elects not to relinquish the security interest, said asset is excluded from liquidation process by operation of Section 52 (1) (b) of IBC i.e., the liquidator no longer has dominion, control, or authority over said asset. The conclusion of proceedings under IBC results in the ceasing of existence of corporate debtor and discharge of liquidator from his responsibility. The respondents denied right of the petitioners to participate in the auction merely because the sale is conducted under the SARFAESI Act. As per Regulation 37(8) of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, there is prohibition of sale or transfer of secured interest to any person who is ineligible under Section 29A of the IBC. Even when the sale is made under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners who are hit by Section 29A have no enforceable right to participate in the auction. The personal health difficulties faced by the petitioners do not invalidate the statutory sale conducted in accordance with Section 52 of IBC.

9. The respondents denied mandatory 30-day notice under the SARFAESI Act as erroneous. The first sale requires 30-day notice and subsequent sales can be done by issuing notice of not less than 15 days. The impugned sale is a subsequent sale and therefore, 15 day notice is sufficient.

10. The respondents made bona fide efforts to realize the non- relinquished secured assets in accordance with the provisions under IBC, read with provisions of the SARFAESI Act. On 25.04.2023, auction was conducted with a reserve price of Rs.52 Crores for combined sale of all assets. Further, auctions dated 04.07.2025 and 03.07.2025 were conducted with reserve price of Rs.26.06 Crores. Also, auctions dated 30.09.2025 and 19.11.2025 were conducted with reserve price of Rs.24.50 Crores. All the said auctions failed for want of bidders. Then, the respondents conducted e-auction on 21.01.2026 with a reserve price of Rs.24.50 Crores and there was successful bidding by M/s. Sri Srinivasa Ferrotech Pvt. Ltd. for a total sale consideration of Rs.24.55 Crores. The said successful bidder paid a sum of Rs.2,45,00,000/- towards 10% of sale consideration as earnest money deposit on 21.01.2026 and a further sum of Rs.3,68,75,000/- was paid towards 15% of the sale consideration. The balance sale consideration of Rs.18,41,25,000/- representing 75% of the sale price remains to be paid. Lastly, it is pleaded that the sale has taken place with payment of part sale consideration by the successful bidder and therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. As such, pleaded that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Contentions of the writ petitioners:

11. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners argued that the writ petition is filed challenging the sale auction notice dated 31.12.2025 issued by respondents for sale of property belonging to Kadevi Industries under Section 52(1)(b) and Section 52(4) of the IBC. The CIRP proceedings have ended on 03.12.2025 and on said date, the liquidator was discharged of his responsibilities. There is no liquidator for Kadevi Industries ever since 03.12.2025. Therefore, for secured creditors who have not relinquished their rights under Section 52 of IBC, there is only one option, i.e., to realize the debt by following the procedure under the SARFAESI Act. For realization of security interest under Section 52 of IBC, the liquidation proceedings must be ongoing. There should be a liquidator in-charge of the proceedings under the IBC. Alternatively, the secured creditor can enforce, realize, or deal with the secured assets in accordance with such law as applicable to security interest, i.e., the SARFAESI Act or the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (‘RDBA’). Since the proceedings under the IBC have concluded, since the liquidator was discharged of his responsibilities, the impugned auction notice under Section 52(1)(b) and 52(4) of the IBC is illegal. As per Regulation 37 of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (‘Liquidation Regulations’), there is a separate procedure for realization of secured interest. The proposed sale under Section 52 of IBC has to be read with Regulation 37 of Liquidation Regulations. When there is no liquidator, provisions under Section 52 of IBC and Regulation 37 of Liquidation Regulations cannot be enforced. When the SARFAESI Act or the RDBA are applicable, Regulation 37 of Liquidation Process is not applicable. The impugned notice is issued under Section 52 of IBC, not under the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, Regulation 37 is applicable when notice is issued under Section 52 of IBC. However, since there is no ongoing liquidation process and no liquidator, Regulation 37 of Liquidation Process cannot be invoked or complied with. Such being the case, the impugned auction sale notice is liable to be set aside.

12. Alternatively, it is argued that in case the impugned auction sale notice issued under Section 52 of IBC cannot be set aside, then the respondents have to strictly follow compliance with Section 52 of IBC and Regulation 37 of Liquidation Process, which is not possible. The writ petitioners claim violation of their rights under Article 14 of Constitution of India on account of applying a non-applicable law, whereby the rights of petitioners to participate in the auction are restricted. Section 29A of IBC creates a bar on the promoters or their family members from participating in the auction, whereas there is no such bar under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

13. Further, it is argued that when the procedure under the SARFAESI Act is adopted, there is violation of mandatory requirement of 30 day notice by issuing only a 15 day notice. The petitioners summed up the arguments claiming that there is hasty action on the part of respondents acting in mala fide manner without jurisdiction and therefore, the entire auction process is vitiated.

14. The learned counsel for petitioners relied upon judgment in the case of Indian Overseas Bank v. RCM Infrastructure Limited and another ((2022) 8 SCC 516), wherein, it is held that a sale would be completed only when the auction purchaser makes the entire payment and the authorized officer, exercising the power of sale, issues a certificate of sale of the property in favour of the purchaser. Further, in the case between Arrow Business Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Bank of India and others (2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4985), it is held that through the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, both ‘pre’ and ‘post’ the 2016 amendments to Section 13(8) thereof, the transfer of ownership of secured asset is complete only upon issuance of sale certificate, and not at any time prior to that. The amendment has altered the date on which the right of redemption is lost, but does not alter the position that the sale is only completed upon issuance of sale certificate in accordance with Rule 9 (6) SARFAESI Rules. In view of the aforementioned judgments, the case of the writ petitioners is that the auction sale has not been completed and therefore, no rights have accrued in favour of the bidder and that the auction can always be set aside.

15. Further, reference is made to judgment in the case of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Pvt. Limited and others ((2023) 10 SCC 60), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that Section 52 of IBC provides options for secured creditors either to relinquish their security interest in the liquidation process or to proceed to enforce it. In case of later option, the secured creditor has to first indicate its option within the prescribed time and then the liquidator may proceed to permit the secured creditor to realize such dues as are proved to exist as security debts. Only upon clearance is provided by the liquidator, the secured creditor can proceed to enforce its claim. In the instant case, the respondents-Bank which is a secured creditor did not relinquish the claim under the IBC during liquidation process and therefore, there can be no enforceability of the security interest by the liquidator under the Code.

Contentions of the respondents:

16. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others ((1976) 3 S.C.R ) for the purpose of challenging the locus of the petitioners to maintain the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In said case, it is held that the High Court is empowered to issue writs under Article 226 of Constitution to any person or authority including Government within its territorial jurisdiction for enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. There is an issue of who is the aggrieved person and what are the qualifications requisite for such status. The expression ‘aggrieved person’ is an elusive and elastic concept. The factors to be considered for ascertaining an aggrieved person could be the contravention of the statute and the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of petitioner's interest affected. An aggrieved person is normally one who has been denied or deprived of something to which he is legally entitled. In that context, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners do not have locus standi to invoke re-jurisdiction, as there is a bar under Section 29A of IBC excluding the participation of promoters and their relatives or related persons in the auction sale.

17. Further, with respect to status of auction sale, reliance is placed upon judgment in the case of Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal Nos.5542-5543 of 2023), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:

               “104.…..

               (iii) In accordance with the unamended Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act, the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset was available till the sale or transfer of such secured asset. In other words, the Borrower's right of redemption did not stand terminated on the date of auction of the sale of secured asset itself, but remained alive till transfer was completed in favour of the auction purchaser by registration of sale certificate and delivery of possession of secured asset. However, as per amended provision of Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act, make it clear that the right of borrower to redeem the secured assets stands extinguished on the very date of publication of notice for public auction under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 2002.”

18. On the basis of aforementioned legal ratio, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petitioners’ right to redeem the secured asset stood extinguished once the notice for auction was issued on 31.12.2025.

19. Lastly, reliance is placed upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (supra), wherein, it is held that the rationale of placing the secured creditors who relinquished their rights in higher priority is found in conjoint reading of Section 52 and Section 53. It is argued that in spite of not relinquishing the rights under Section 52(1) (a) of IBC, under Section 52 (1) (b) of said Code, the rights of the secured creditor continue to survive. Respondents are deriving its right to conduct the auction sale with respect to the secured interest which is subject matter of a proceeding under CIRP on account of survival of said interest under Section 52(1)(b) of IBC. It is denied that once the liquidation proceedings have concluded, the NCLT becomes Coram Non Judice and the liquidator's responsibilities stand discharged. It is argued that the basis for realizing the security interest is the authorization emerging from Section 52(1)(b) of IBC. However, the procedure under SARFAESI Act is adopted. It is argued that there is no conflict in application of IBC provision and the SARFAESI provisions while conducting the auction.

20. It is the case of the respondents-bank that the power to conduct the auction is derived from Section 52 (1) (b) of IBC, but the procedure adopted is under SARFAESI Act and therefore, the writ petitioners who are the guarantors of the corporate debtor are not entitled to participate in the auction on account of operation of Section 29A of IBC. It is vehemently argued by the respondents that the petitioners do not have locus standi to file the writ petition as they are disentitled to participate in the auction, in addition to the fact that their right to redeem the secured interest stood extinguished on the day of issuance of auction notice as per judgment of Celir LLP (supra).

Findings of the Court:

21. Upon perusal of the record and contentions of the rival parties, there are two major issues of contention. Firstly, it is seen that there is a serious dispute about the tenability of the auction notice dated 31.12.2025 which is issued under Section 52(1)(b) and 52(4) of the IBC, while adopting the procedure under SARFAESI Act. Next, there is serious contest about the locus standi of petitioners to file the writ petition.

22. Coming to the first issue, according to the petitioners, there can be no applicability of IBC once the CIRP proceedings have concluded on 03.12.2025 and the liquidator has been discharged. Since the applicability of the IBC ceased, the only option available for the secured creditor to realize the secured interest is to follow procedure under the SARFAESI Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that in case the auction sale is made under Section 52(1)(b) and 52(4) of the IBC, under Section 29A, they do not have any right to participate in the auction proceedings. The petitioners intend to participate in the auction proceedings to salvage the security interest which holds emotional and sentimental value on account of the same being acquired from their ancestors. The petitioners can participate in the auction only when applicable law is the SARFAESI Act independently, devoid of any applicability.

23. In that context, there is a need to peruse relevant clauses from Section 52 of the IBC, which are reproduced below:

               “52. Secured creditor in liquidation proceedings.—

               (1) A secured creditor in the liquidation proceedings may—

               (a) relinquish its security interest to the liquidation estate and receive proceeds from the sale of assets by the liquidator in the manner specified in section 53; or

               (b) realise its security interest in the manner specified in this section.

               (2) Where the secured creditor realises security interest under clause

               (b) of sub-section (1), he shall inform the liquidator of such security interest and identify the asset subject to such security interest to be realised.

               (3) Before any security interest is realised by the secured creditor under this section, the liquidator shall verify such security interest and permit the secured creditor to realise only such security interest, the existence of which may be proved either— (a) by the records of such security interest maintained by an information utility; or (b) by such other means as may be specified by the Board.

               (4) A secured creditor may enforce, realise, settle, compromise or deal with the secured assets in accordance with such law as applicable to the security interest being realised and to the secured creditor and apply the proceeds to recover the debts due to it.”

24. In the above context, in case the secured creditor intends to realize the security interest under Section 52 (1) (b), the same has to be informed to the liquidator of such security interest for the purpose of identifying this asset subject, to such security interest to be realized. The very reading of Section 52(2) of IBC shows that in case the realization has to be under Section 52(1)(b), the same has to be while the liquidator is still in charge of CIRP proceedings, such that the secured creditor has to approach the liquidator and inform him about the security interest which is to be sold for the purpose of realizing the interest. Section 52 while providing two options to the secured creditor is also providing the procedure or manner in which the security interest is to be realized under both options. Under Section 52(1)(a), the responsibility of realizing the security is completely vested in the liquidator, whereas under Section 52(1)(b), the secured creditor while following his own course of action is expected to inform the liquidator about the security interest that is the subject through which the security interest is sought to be realized. Further, before such a security interest is realized under Section 52(3), the liquidator has to verify such interest and permit the secured creditor to realize such a security interest. This course of action of verification of the security interest and permission to realize is possible only before the liquidator is discharged of his responsibilities under the IBC.

25. Lastly, as per Section 52(4), a secured creditor may enforce his rights over the secured assets in accordance with such law as applicable to the security interest being realized. The language employed in Section 52(4) shows that the secured creditor has to realize its security interest while dealing with secured assets in accordance with applicable law. The words ‘in accordance with such law as applicable’ clearly mean some other law, but not IBC. In case, the intention of the legislature was to apply IBC, the words ‘in accordance with such law as applicable to the security interest’ would not have been employed, rather the legislature would have employed. The words “in accordance with the IBC”. The very factum of employment of the words ‘such law as applicable’ shows that the legislature never intended IBC to be applicable, when the secured creditor proceeded to enforce its right to secure the interest with the secured assets.

26. In view of the foregoing discussion as to structure and implementation of Section 52 of IBC, this Court is of the opinion that when a secured creditor enforces his rights under Section 52(1)(b) of the IBC, the same can be under IBC before culmination of the CIRP proceedings for the simple reason that realization of security interest under Section 52(1)(b), coupled with Section 52(2) and Section 52(3), show the liquidator’s role which is active and responsive, which is possible only before he is discharged from his responsibilities. Therefore, for the IBC to be applicable for any sale under Section 52(1)(b), the same has to be before culmination of the CIRP proceedings under IBC. Only, then the secured creditor would be able to inform the liquidator about the security interest which is meant to be realized and only then the liquidator would be able to verify such security interest. This kind of activity on the part of liquidator cannot be contemplated after closing of CIRP proceedings and after the liquidator is discharged. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to infer that IBC would be applicable to sale of a secured asset which is in the custody of a secured creditor for the purpose of realizing the security interest, i.e., post termination of CIRP .

27. Last but not least, the language employed in Section 52(4) could have easily referred to applicability of IBC rather than enforcement of rights of a secured creditor in accordance with such law as applicable. And said language, in crystal clear terms, indicates that it is not the IBC which is applicable, but such other law which is applicable for the purpose of realizing the security interest.

28. In a matter involving realization of secured interests in the case of Pegasus Assets Reconstruction P. Ltd. v. Haryana Concast Ltd. (MANU/SC/1489/2015), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered the stand taken by the High Court of Delhi and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court of Punjab and Harayana had held that there are certain fetters placed on the secured creditor and permitted exercise of powers as secured creditor under SARFAESI Act. Whereas, the High Court of Delhi differed with the view in a similar case as to whether a company Court can wield any control in respect of sale of secured asset by secured creditor in exercise of powers available to creditor under the SARFAESI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that that the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be used to put any fetters on the sale by secured creditor because the secured creditor under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act has been granted right to enforce the security interest without intervention of the Court or Tribunal in accordance with provisions of the SARFAESI Act. It is held that the Parliament clearly intended under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act that a secured creditor has the right to enforce its security interests de hors intervention of Court or a Tribunal. It is held that powers under the Companies Act cannot be wielded by the company Judge to interfere with the proceedings of a secured creditor to realize its secured interest, as per provisions of the SARFAESI Act. To put it simply, IBC and SARFAESI operate independently but not conjointly or simultaneously to any liquidation proceedings.

29. The aforementioned legal ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also throws light on the issue to the extent that whenever the proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act, the Companies Act is not applicable. The company Judge cannot interfere with the proceedings, much less the liquidator. Thus, the secured creditor is empowered under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act to realize the security interests without any fetters of the Companies Act.

30. When the legal ratio in case of Pegasus Assets (supra) is made applicable to the present case, respondents should not have issued the notification under Section 52(1)(b) and 52(4) of the IBC. The procedure under Companies Act is not applicable on account of very factum of the impracticability of following the procedure contemplated therein as well as the fact that no fetters can be placed on the secured creditor in its enforcement of rights under the SARFAESI Act. Thus, viewed from any angle, the respondents cannot claim that it is deriving right to auction the secured interest under Section 52(1)(b). It may be true that the rights of the secured creditor are protected under Section 52(1)(b). However, the procedure available for auction of the secured interest under Section 52(1)(b), coupled with the procedure contemplated under Section 52(2) to (4) is not possible once the CIRP proceedings stand concluded. There is no liquidator to whom a reference can be made. There can be no liquidator who will verify the interest etc. Only on account of non-applicability of Section 52 (1) (b), 52(2) and 52 (3), the legislature clearly contemplated the realization of the secured interest by a secured creditor under applicable law which is the SARFAESI Act, as per Section 52(4). Thus, there is no merit in the contention of the respondents about there being no flaw in issuing the impugned auction notice under Section 52(1)(b) and 52(4) of the IBC and therefore, the said notice is untenable.

31. Respondents on one hand supported the issuance of auction notice under Sections 52 (1) (b) and 52 (4) of the IBC and on the other hand vehemently questioned the locus standi of the petitioners to file the writ petition. There is emphasis on who is the aggrieved person, who can approach a Writ Court seeking directions and in that context relied upon the judgment of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai and Celir LLP (both supra). While relying upon the legal ratio laid down in the aforementioned judgments, respondents - bank contends that the petitioners, who are guarantors of the corporate debtor- Kadevi Industries Limited are disentitled to participate in the auction, on account of bar under Section 29A of the IBC. Since there is a bar precluding the petitioners from participating in the auction, it is contended that they do not have locus standi to file the writ petition.

32. As per discussion at paragraph No.29, this Court has held that auction under Sections 52(1)(b) and 52(4) of the IBC, is untenable and that auction cannot be conducted as per the power derived from Section 52(1)(b) of the IBC, as the proceedings under said statute stood terminated. That being the case, the operation of Section 29A of the IBC also would not be applicable to the petitioners. Once the bar under Section 29A of the IBC does not operate against the petitioners, they can no longer be any question about their entitlement to enforce their rights under any other law including the SARFAESI Act. As contended by the petitioners, the very application of wrong statute to auction violates their right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. On account of wrong application of the statute a valuable right of the petitioners would be denied that is to participate in auction to make attempt to salvage the property for which they have sentimental attachment.

33. Further, the goal of respondents is to realize their security interest from whichever corner possible and not preclude anybody on account of any bar, more-so, when there is no bar under any statute. The respondents do not stand to lose anything on account of participation of the petitioners in the auction, if conducted under SARFAESI Act.

34. It appears that the sole reason for applying IBC is to preclude the persons associated with corporate debtor- Kadevi Industries Limited from participating in the auction. However, application of said law after termination of proceedings under IBC is not tenable. Consequently, Section 29A of the IBC is not applicable to any person associated with corporate debtor- Kadevi Industries Limited including the petitioners. Therefore, there can be no question about the locus standi of the petitioners to file the writ petition.

35. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the writ petition is maintainable by the petitioners and the auction notice issued under Section 52(1)(b) and 52(4) of the IBC is untenable.

36. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned auction notice is liable to be declared as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the proceedings that took place under said impugned auction notice are also to be declared as null and void.

37. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the notice of sale dated 31.12.2025 issued by respondents and consequently, declaring the proceedings that took place subsequent to the said notice as null and void. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.