Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
M/S.. Villmar Agro Polymers Pvt Ltd vs The Andhra Pradesh State Financial … on 16 February, 2026
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
1
APHC010077232026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3209]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No
Nos: 4350, 4353, 4358 and 4360 of 2026
W.P.No.4350 of 2026
Between:
1. M/S.. VILLMAR AGRO POLYMERS PVT LTD.
LTD.,, D.NO.7-5A-3,
D.NO.7 2ND
FLOOR, MEGHANA RESIDENCY,RAMARAOPETA.KAKINADA, EAST
GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERS VIZ.. 1.
SMT.K. SUBHA SRI W/O DR. K. JAGADEES AGED ABOUT 26
YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/0 SY.NO.64/1A, G. MAMIDADA (V)
PEDAPUDI (M),EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
2. DR. K. JAGADEES, S/O K. BASIVI REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.N0.7
D.N0.7-5A-3,
3, 2ND FLOOR,MEGHANA
RESIDENCY, RAMARAOPETA, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI
DISTRICT.
3. SMT. K. SESHAYI, W/O LATE K. BASAVI REDDY AGED ABOUT 64
YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.25
D.NO.25-5-16,
16, FLAT NO. 204,
BHAVISHYA APARTMENT,VINUKONDAVARI STREET,
BALAJICHERUVU, KAKINADA.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REP.
BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLOT
NO.O.S NO.2, 2ND CROSS, 3RD ROAD INDUSTRIAL PARK,
VIJAYAWADA, A.P - 520007.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, A.P.STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
D.NO.19-5-9, NEAR SWATANTRA PETROL BUNK
KAMBALACHERUVU, RAJAHMUNDRY, E.G.DISTRICT - 533101.
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. Smt.S.V.INDIRA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Mr.G.R. SUDHAKAR
3The Court made the following common order:
Seeking to declare that the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 18.12.2025
issued by the 2nd respondent – Corporation is against natural justice and for a
direction to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 14.08.2025,
the present writ petitions are filed. As the issue involved is similar, the same
are disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for
the Caveator / Corporation. Perused the material on record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that the first
petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing and processing of plastic products.
For the purpose of establishing and running its business, the learned counsel
submits that the petitioners approached the second respondent for sanction of
a term loan and vide proceedings dated 07.06.2017, term loan of Rs.684.00
lakhs was sanctioned. She submits that the petitioners 2 to 4 have offered
their land as collateral security for the said term loan, that the collateral
security was withdrawn in the midst of the project and under those
circumstances, representations dated 21.05.2018 and 21.05.2019 were made
to the second respondent, but no action was taken on the same. She also
submits that thereafter the petitioners made further representations to the
second respondent for rescheduling the payments in view of Covid-19, but no
orders were passed. Be that as it may. The learned counsel submits that on
14.08.2025 (Ex.P2), the petitioners made representation to the second
respondent requesting for One Time Settlement (OTS), but the same also did
4
not yield any positive response. Ultimately, the learned counsel submits that
the impugned auction notice was issued proposing to sell the property
mortgaged by the petitioners. She submits that the market value of the
mortgaged property is about Rs.16 Crores. The same is sought to be
auctioned at a very lesser price of about Rs.9 Crores. She submits that the
action of the respondents in proceeding with the proposed auction without
considering the representation of the petitioners is unjust, arbitrary and
therefore liable to be interfered with.
4. On the other hand, Mr.G.R.Sudhakar, counsel for the respondent-
Corporation made submissions by placing relevant material for consideration
by this Court. He submits that the petitioners on the earlier occasion
approached this Court by filing W.P.No.15597 of 2022 etc., challenging the
action of the respondent-authorities in locking the petitioner-unit for non-
payment of Term Loan account dues. He submits that a learned Judge of this
Court, after considering the matter, by an order dated 02.06.2022, directed the
authorities of the Corporation to unlock the premises of the petitioner-Unit,
subject to the condition of depositing Rs.1 Crore within four weeks, by way of
part payments. He submits that as per the interim order dated 02.06.2022, 1st
installment of Rs.10 lakhs was to be paid within a week from the date of order,
on payment of which, the Unit shall be unlocked to ensure the petitioners to
run the same. He submits that in the said order, it was also provided that in
the event of non-payment of Rs.1 Crore within the time stipulated by the
Court, it is open to take necessary action against the petitioners as per Law.
He submits that aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed W.A.Nos.638
5
and 639 of 2022, the Corporation filed two appeals, that a learned Division
Bench of this Court vide orders 23.08.2022 while dismissing the appeals filed
by the petitioners, granted liberty to them to approach the learned Single
Judge, for extension of time.
5. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners having failed to
comply with the interim orders dated 02.06.2022, subsequently withdrew the
writ petitions on 30.09.2022. He submits that in the meanwhile, the
respondent-Corporation issued First Sale advertisement on 03.09.2022 for
sale of the properties, offered as security, but no offers were received within
the due date and as such, the proposed sale auction was cancelled. In the
meanwhile, he submits that the petitioners filed W.P.No.31348 of 2022 etc;
challenging the Auction Notification and sought stay of auction proceedings.
However, he submits that the writ petitions were dismissed on 05.03.2024 as
withdrawn. He also submits that the Corporation in fact, issued Second Sale
Advertisement on 18.03.2023 for sale of the properties and challenging the
same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.9664 of 2023, but the said writ petitions
were dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 01.09.2023. He submits
that no steps were taken for restoration of the said writ petitions. Be that as it
may. He submits that the petitioners have not stated anything about filing of
the earlier writ petitions and dismissal of the same in the present writ petitions,
that the petitioners except making some representation, had not shown any
bona-fides by depositing atleast 15% of the value of the properties sought to
be auctioned. He submits that the only intention of the petitioners is to drag
on the matter, that the respondent – Corporation has shown much indulgence
6
in the matter and ultimately constrained to issue third auction Notification for
sale of the subject matter properties. He submits that the writ petitions are
devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the
material on record. At the outset, it may be pertinent to note that though in the
writ affidavit a mention was made about some correspondence with regard to
collateral security etc., and the representations dated 19.11.2020 stated to
have been made by the petitioner, the same were not filed. Except the e-Sale
Auction Notice and the representation dated 14.08.2025 stated to have been
made prior to the said notice, the petitioners did not chose to file any of the
orders passed by this Court on the earlier occasion with reference to the
subject matter property, let alone disclosing the facts in the affidavit. In fact, as
seen from the impugned notice, it is discernible that the possession of the
subject matter properties were taken over on 17.05.2022.
7. Non-disclosure of filing of the earlier writ petitions and the orders
passed thereon by the Court, is fatal to the case of the petitioners, disentitle
them from securing any relief from the Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The petitioners have not approached this Court with
clean hands and suppressed the material facts. The petitioner is not only
guilty of suppression of facts but also guilty of abuse of process of law.
7
8. In Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme
Court while reiterating the legal position on the issue of suppression of facts at
para No.9 and 10 held as follows:
“9. It is no more res integra that the Doctrine of “Clean hands and non-
suppression of material facts” is applicable with full force to every proceedings
before any judicial forum. The party invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands
and disclose all correct and material facts in his Writ Petition. If it is brought to the
notice of the Court that the petition has been guilty of suppression of material and
relevant facts or has not come with clean hands, such conduct must be seriously
viewed by the courts as the abuse of process of law and the petition must be
dismissed on that ground alone without entering into the merits of the matter.
10. As held in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors.,
(reported in AIR 2004 SC 2421), as a general rule, suppression of material fact
by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been
evolved out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process
of court by deceiving it. Similar view has been taken in General Manager,
Haryana Roadways v. Jai Bhagwan & Anr.(reported in (2008) 4 SCC 127), in
Prestige Lights Ltd., v. State Bank of India etc”.
9. In the light of the above stated factual and legal position, this Court is
not inclined to entertain the writ petitions and the same are accordingly
dismissed. Though it is a fit case for imposing costs, taking a lenient view,
there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
Dt. 16.02.2026
BLV
1
2025 INSC 348
8
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION Nos: 4350, 4353, 4358 and 4360 of 2026
Date: 16.02.2026
BLV
