Ms Sahu Construction v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

3

OTS wherein the amount was indicated to be Rs.1,70,27,102.00 offer was given for settlement of Loan Dues at Rs.128.37 Lakhs. While the applicant in pursuant to the said Notice was making endeavour to settle the dues under OTS and was negotiating with the Opposite parties No.1 to 3 as regard to the Mode of payments of OTS amount a sale notice dated 17.04.17 was published for sale of the properties situating at Cuttack fixing the reserve Price at Rs.1.08 Crore fixing the date of auction to 19.05.2017. Thereafter the applicant came to know that the said Mortgaged Properties has been sold in favour of a single bidder i.e. Defendant No. 4 to 6 for a paltry sum of Rs.1.09 Crores i.e. just one lakh above the reserve price. The applicant having come to know of the sale assailed the said action before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.10684 of 2017 and an interim order was passed on dated 07.06.17 directing that in case the applicant has not been dispossessed from the property in question he shall not be dispossessed from the same subject to deposit of Rs.30.00 Lakhs before the Opposite Party bank within a period of three weeks from that date and accordingly the order was complied. Thereafter on date 08.04.2021 the said writ petition while was listed for hearing the Hon'ble Court declined to interfere in the matter with the observation that the said order will not prevent the applicant from going before the D.R.T. in the proceeding initiated by the Opposite Party bank. The Mortgage property has been sold without following due process of law as envisaged under the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 and the Rules made there under and the measures taken being not in accordance with the provisions of SARFAESI Act and the Rules Made there under Sale made is vitiated and invalid and is liable to be set aside. No intended sale Notice as required under Rule 8(6) of security interest Enforcement Rule 2002 has been served on the applicant which was a mandatory requirement of the Measures required to be taken under the SARFAESI Act 2002. The details given out as regard to the

4

mortgaged properties was not in accordance with the proviso to sub rule 6 of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 and though the character of the property in the Record of rights were indicated to be Pond the said fact was suppressed. Besides though under letter of the Bank dated 12.01.2017 the applicant was communicated that the amount outstanding in the loan account as on 31.03.2016 was Rs.17027102.00 under the sale Notice the amount of Debt was indicated to be Rs.20058579.00 as on 08.12.2013 which at the face of record render the measures taken to be not in accordance with the provision of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and the sale purportedly made is invalid and is liable to be set aside. The Property that has been sold is the residential house of the Applicant where the applicant is residing with his family members and the sale has been made without taking over possession of the Mortgaged Properties which was ipso facto unlawful and is contrary to the Decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court decided in the case of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & others and thus sale conducted without taking over possession of the mortgaged properties are not in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and is invalid and thus the purported auction purchasers have not acquired any right U/s.13 (6) of the SARFAESI Act 2002.

Applicant has relied on the following decisions in support of its case:-

1. 2023(13) SCR Page 53 Para 20 & para 23 page 104 & 105 in the case of CELIR LLP VS BAFNA Motors

2. 2024 ibclaw.in124 SC Govind Kumar Sharma & another Vrs. Bank of Baroda & others

3. Notices were issue to the Respondent No.1 to 6 to show cause as to why the relief prayed for by the applicant be not granted. After

5

receiving the notice, the Respondents No.1 to 3 and Respondent No.4 & 5 and 6 appeared and filed their counter affidavit.

4. The Respondents No.1 to 3 filed their counter affidavit and contended that Notice U/s.13(2) SARFAESI Act was issued on 19.12.2013 demanding an amount of Rs.2,00,58,579/- (as on 16.12.2013). The Appellant made a representation dt. 30.01.2024. Thereafter the Bank has issued notice U/s.13(4) of SARFAESI Act on 19.06.2014. Aggrieved by the action of the Bank, the Borrower had filed S.A No.82 OF 2014 before this Hon'ble Tribunal DRT, Cuttack praying for quashing of notice dated 19.06.2014 and to disposed of the representation submitted U/s.13(3A). This Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated 20.01.2015 allowed the S.A No.82 of 2014 by quashing the notice dated 19.06.2014 and directed the Bank to proceed to recover the dues in accordance with law after disposal of the representation by a reasoned order. In compliance with the order dated 20.01.2015, the Bank considered the representation of the Borrower and issued a letter dated 27.01.2015 stating that the Borrower has indulged in financial indiscipline and violated important terms of sanction, breached the trust of the bank and thus rejected the claim for rephasement/renewal/continuing the operation of loan account by the Borrower. That the reasons stated in letter dated 27.01.2015 is not untenable under any law. Thereafter, the bank issued fresh notice U/s.13(4) SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8(1) of the SARFAESI Rules on 06.02.2015. Thereafter the bank issued letter dated 13.04.2017 under Rule 8(6) of the SARFAESI Rules notifying the Borrower (Shri Pradeep Kumar Sahu) that sale is going to be conducted on 19.05.2017 which has been served on the Borrower- Appellant by post. Thereafter, the Bank published the public notice for sale of assets on 17.04.2017 wherein the date of auction was scheduled to be 19.05.2017. Thus, the immovable property situated at Plot No.481/823, Khata No. 372/163, Area 0.087 dec. standing in

6

the name of Pradeep Kumar Sahu was sold to one Bimal Kumar Agarwal and others. Accordingly, Sale Certificate was issued on 17.06.2017 and thereafter the auction purchaser has converted his name in the ROR issued by Tehsildar, Cuttack, Sadar. The Bank vide its letter dated 17.01.2017 offered to the Borrower under SBI OTS 2016-2017 scheme for an OTS amount of Rs.128.37 lakhs against the balance outstanding as on 31.03.2016 Rs. 1,70,27,102/- which includes interest up to the date of NPA and expenses as per the format of SBI OTS 2016-17 scheme. The Notice U/r.8(6) SARFASI Rules has been served on Shri Pradeep Kumar Sahu through post and served on Smt. Arati Sahu also through post. Thus, the Bank has complied with the mandatory requirements of the SARFAESI Act read with SARFAESI Rules. The dues of the Borrower was Rs. 1,70,27,102/- (as on 31.02.2016) which was intimated to the Borrower vide our letter dated 17.01.2017. As per sale notice dated 17.04.2017 wherein the amount of dues is Rs. 2,00,58,579/- includes accrued interest from the date of NPA i.e. 08.10.2013 till 16.12.2013 which has been mentioned in the 13(2) SARFAESI Notice dated 19.12.2013. the Borrower has with malafied intention deliberately inserted vexatious dates to the confuse the judicial mind of this Hon'ble DRT. As regards the nature and character of the property as

"Jalasaya" or pond situated over Plot No.481/823, Khata No. 372/163, Area 0.087 dec. standing in the name of Pradeep Kumar Sahu is concerned, we would like to state that at the time of mortgage to the Bank, the Borrower had constructed a building over the said property. The land and building was offered as mortgage to the Bank by execution of "Letter of Confirmation for creation of mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds" dated 07.04.2008 with the intention to create mortgage to secure the loan sanctioned to the Borrower. It is further

7

submitted that in the aforesaid Letter of Confirmation, the Borrower has deposited two numbers of Original Conversion Receipt(s) i.e. 613951 dated 31.03.2003 and 367775 dated 16.012008 which shows that the Borrower has already filed with the competent authority for conversion of the Kissam of land from Jalasaya to Homestead. Thus the aforesaid documents clearly indicate that the said property is used as homestead land instead of pond. Further, the Borrower has executed an affidavit dated 14.12.2007 before the Notary Public, inter-alia stating that he wants to create equitable mortgage in respect of the said property and that he is the owner and in possession of the said property and holds clear and marketable title over the said property. Further, he has stated to submit the original conversion ROR after obtaining the same from Tehsildar, Sadar, Cuttack. As such, sale of Jalasaya property is not expressly barred under section 31 of the SARFAESI Act and the State of Orissa has not carried out any State amendments w.r.t. the same. Thus, we would like to submit that the Borrower in order to confuse the judicial mind of the Hon'ble DRT has resorted to cheap tactics. Further, the Borrower in order to delay the repayment of dues to the Bank has been continuously resorting to multiple litigation against the bank and the auction purchaser. The Borrower instead of repaying the dues to the bank is derailing the recovery process with ulterior motive to enrich himself at the cost of public money.

The Appellant/Borrower has himself stated that the property which has been sold is the residential house of the Appellant where the Appellant is residing with his family members. Thus, it is clear that the property in question is used as homestead land and his residential building has been constructed over it. The Borrower/Appellant has himself been furnishing conflicting statement on affidavit with regard to the status of the property.

8

The allegation of the borrower that the Bank has sold the property without taking possession of the mortgage property is concerned, we would like to state that the bank has issued Possession Notice U/s.13(4) SARFAESI Act on 06.02.2015 in accordance with the SARFAESI Act and rule framed there under. That as per the SAARFAESI Act, there is no distinction between symbolic possession and physical possession. The Bank had already obtained orders for physical possession of the property from the Collector and District Magistrate, Cuttack on 20.10.2014. That the Collector & District Magistrate, Cuttack recalled its order dated 20.10.2014 through his order dated 25.02.2015 in view of the pending W.P.(C) No. 10684 of 2017 which has been disposed off on 08.04.2021. Thus finally the bank has once again applied for D.M. Permission to handover the physical possession of the property vide its letter dated 12.04.2021 which is under consideration. In the scenario, the bank has never acted contrary to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. That the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar vs IARC is concerned, the same is not applicable to the present case in hand as it relates to lease hold properties which is occupied by tenants. The Bank has given several opportunities to the Borrower including the offer under OTS to settle the dues. As the Borrower did not take any interest in repaying the dues, the Bank was constrained to take possession of the property and auction the same in order to recover the public money. That the Bank has not erred in violating the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules. As regards the Borrower's intention to redeem the properties is concerned, the opportunity is given to the Borrower as per Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act which stipulates that where the amount of dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by him is tendered to the secured creditor at any time before the date of publication of notice for public auction or

9

inviting quotations or tenders from public or private treaty for transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale of secured asset, then the secured asset shall not be transferred by way of lease, assignment or sale by the secured creditor. In the instant case, the Borrower did not come forward to redeem his property by tendering the dues to the bank before the publication of notice for public auction. Hence, the Borrower/Appellant has lost his right to redeem the property by virtue of provisions of section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. The Bank has not violated any provisions of the SARFAESI Act as the auction notice was served on the borrower as well as the auction has been conducted in due process according to SARFAESI Act. Further with regard to taking prior physical possession is concerned the same is not mandatory as per the Rule and thus the relief prayed in this paragraph should not be taken into count and in the first instance since huge public money is at stake to say more than Rs.3 Crores let a direct be issued to the Appellant to pay back the dues of the Bank.

Respondent Bank has relied on the following decisions in support of its case:-

1. WPC No.30607 of 2024 field by applicant against SBI

2. WPC No.5726 of 2025 filed by Applicant against SBI

3. OHRC No.3828 pg 2024 filed by Applicant against SBI

5. Respondent No.4 filed counter and stated that the Notice U/s. 13(4) of the SARFRAESI Act issued against the applicant on the mortgaged property 1^stissued on 18.12.2013, already 8 years passed but applicant failed to settle the matter. This intention is proved malafiedness of the applicant. Mortgaged Property at Talcher is already sold, but applicant failed to take any action against auction of Talcher property.

10

The applicant intentionally did not cooperate to sought out the loan litigation, for which the letter dt. 12.01.2017 for settlement of loan amount by OTS, wherein the amount was indicated at Rs.1,70,27,102.00 and the OTS was settled at Rs.128.38 lakhs issued by bank. Bank provides opportunity to applicant but applicant not comply the same. Hence OTS proposal given by Bank fails for which question of OTS matter cannot considered here. Therefore Annexure- 5 is a invalid documents.

The defendants No.2 issued Sale Notice dt. 17.04.2017 is valid and ground of OTS matter is a farce. Further the applicant has neither challenge nor stay the said sale proceeding. Rather, the defendant No.4 to 6 have purchased the said property through process and procedure of Tender for Auction Sale of the defendants No. 4, 5 and

6. On the day of Auction Sale the applicant has never raised any objection regarding the sale of landed property. further, the question of sale process without knowledge of applicant is completely a false. As the said sale was made with Open Tender through e-auction, there is no question of suppression or illegality is made by the defendants/Bank.

Auction purchasers Def. Not. 4 to 6 purchased in public e- auction on consideration of Rs.1,09,00,000/- only against which a Sale Certificate is issued in favour of the defendant No.4 to 6. After purchase the defendant Nos. 4 to 6 applied for mutation and revenue records which are already changed in favour of the Defendant No.4 to 6. The defendant No.4 to 6 are paying land revenue regularly. The defendant No.4 to 6 to pay consideration money have approached PNB for financial assistance and have availed a loan from PNB amounting to Rs. 80,00,000/- (Eighty Lakhs) only by keeping e- auction property as security vide Hone Loan Account No. 055300NC00002231 and have paid loan interest amounting to Rs.24,73,463,000/- for the period from 16.06.2017 to 31.03.2021.

11

Further the applicant have not fully complied the order of the Hon'ble Court. Hon'ble Court order is not help to applicant in any manner, only this proves the malafide intention of the applicant. The applicant M/s. Shoo Construction only with an evil intention is delaying the process of SARFAESI Act and harassing the defendants intentionally filing cases against the defendants. As per Annexure-1 sale notice dated 17.04.2017 is compiled rule 8(6) of security enforcement rule 2002. As per rule for if public auction hold than it sufficient comply of rule if a public notice in two leading newspapers one in a vernacular language. Bank published same in two leading Newspaper one Odia and other in English. Hence this SA is not maintainable in eye of law.

The mortgaged property is not in accordance with the proviso to Sub rule 6 of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is not correct, as the applicant says that the schedule property in used from home and kissam is Jalasaya and applied for conversation to Kissam Homestead for which he has also deposited Conversion premium. As such taking grounds mortgaged property as Jalasaya is maintainable for sale. Therefore, the face of record rendered the measures taken to be in accordance with the provision of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 is attracted and the Sale purportedly made is valid and cannot be set aside and the applicant has no title over the said mortgaged property. Cuttack development Authority granting House construction permission Vide order No.13548 dated 05.11.1996 and the revenue authority considering CDA permission and actual filled passion the OLR 8A application allowed and conversation fees deposited on 31.03.2003 vide receipt No. 613951 amounting Rs.26,100.00. for which presumption is that the case land is home steed.

As the bank has already taken symbolic possession of the mortgaged property before Auction Sale and purchasing of said

12

mortgaged property from bank by the Defendant No. 4 to 6 are genuine, authentic and valid purchase and have not violates the provision of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. After sale of the said mortgaged property of the applicant the ROR of the land has already mutated in the same of defendant No.4 to 6 and revenue record has already been changed. The said mortgaged property is already given to PNB for availing loan for payment of loan instalment to PNB. As such redeem of the property sold by the applicant is not possible.

Respondent No.4 also relied on the decision i.e. CELIR LLP VRS. BAFNA MOTORS (MUMBAI) PVT. LTD. & OTHERS

6. On the perusal of the pleadings of the rival parties, the following issues arise for consideration.

(i)Whether the Respondent Bank has issued auction sale notice during subsistence of OTS?

(ii)Whether the Respondent Bank has taken physical possession of the property prior to sale of the schedule property?

(iii)Whether the Respondent Bank has issued individual auction sale notice under Rule 8(6) of the Security Enforcement Rules 2002 as per provisions of law?

(iv)Whether the Respondent Bank has sold the property in favour of a single bidder in violation of SARFAESI Act and Rules?

(v)Whether schedule mortgaged property is a jalasaya which is exempted under Section 31 of the SARFAESI Act?

(vI)Whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

7. Issue No.(i):- Whether the Respondent Bank has issued auction sale notice during subsistence of OTS?

The contention of the applicant is that in January 2017 the petitioner was communicated with a letter dated 12.01.2017 for a

13

settlement under OTS wherein the amount was indicated to be Rs.1,70,27,102.00 offer was given for settlement of Loan Dues at Rs.128.37 Lakhs. While the applicant in pursuant to the said Notice was making endeavour to settle the dues under OTS and was negotiating with the Opposite parties No.1 to 3 as regard to the Mode of payments of OTS amount a sale notice dated 17.04.17 was published for sale of the properties situating at Cuttack fixing the reserve Price at Rs.1.08 Crore fixing the date of auction to 19.05.2017. The contention of the Respondent Bank is that the Bank vide its letter dated 17.01.2017 offered to the Borrower under SBI OTS 2016- 2017 scheme for an OTS amount of Rs.128.37 lakhs against the balance outstanding as on 31.03.2016 Rs. 1,70,27,102/- which includes interest up to the date of NPA and expenses as per the format of SBI OTS 2016-17 scheme.

From the perusal of the record it is seen that due to non- adherence of the OTS terms by the applicant, Respondent Bank was compelled to issue auction sale notice. As such there is no illegality or irregularity on the part of the Respondent Bank in publishing the auction sale notice and the Respondent Bank has published the sale notice Accordingly Issue No.(i) is answered.

8. Issue No.(ii):- Whether the Respondent Bank has taken physical possession of the property prior to sale of the schedule property?

The contention of the applicant is that the Property that has been sold is the residential house of the Applicant where the applicant is residing with his family members and the sale has been made without taking over possession of the Mortgaged Properties which was ipso facto unlawful and is contrary to the Decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court decided in the case of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & others and thus sale conducted without taking over possession of the mortgaged properties are not in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act

14

2002 and is invalid and thus the purported auction purchasers have not acquired any right U/s.13 (6) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. The contention of the Respondent Bank is that that the bank has issued Possession Notice U/s.13(4) SARFAESI Act on 06.02.2015 in accordance with the SARFAESI Act and rule framed there under. That as per the SAARFAESI Act, there is no distinction between symbolic possession and physical possession. The Bank had already obtained orders for physical possession of the property from the Collector and District Magistrate, Cuttack on 20.10.2014. That the Collector & District Magistrate, Cuttack recalled its order dated 20.10.2014 through his order dated 25.02.2015 in view of the pending W.P.(C) No. 10684 of 2017 which has been disposed of on 08.04.2021. Thus finally the bank has once again applied for D.M. Permission to handover the physical possession of the property vide its letter dated 12.04.2021 which is under consideration. In the scenario, the bank has never acted contrary to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar vs IARC is concerned, the same is not applicable to the present case in hand as it relates to lease hold properties which is occupied by tenants. From the perusal of the record it is seen that the Respondent Bank has taken symbolic possession of the property under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and thereafter proceeded under Section 14 of the Act for taking physical possession of the property and it was delayed due to pendency of the writ petition. Further more as per SARAFAESI Act and Rules, there is no distinction between symbolic possession and physical possession. As such it is proved that the Respondent Bank has taken possession of the schedule property before putting the property into auction sale. Accordingly issue No.(ii) is answered

15

09. Issue No.(iii):-Whether the Respondent bank has issued individual auction sale notice under Rule 8(6) of the Security Enforcement Rules 2002 as per provisions of law?

The contention of the applicant is that no intended sale notice as required under Rule 8(6) of Security Interest Enforcement Rule 2002 has been served on the applicant which was a mandatory requirement of the measures required to be taken under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

The contention of the Respondent bank is that the bank issued fresh notice U/s.13(4) SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8(1) of the SARFAESI Rules on 06.02.2015. Thereafter the bank issued letter dated 13.04.2017 under Rule 8(6) of the SARFAESI Rules notifying the Borrower (Shri Pradeep Kumar Sahu) that sale is going to be conducted on 19.05.2017 which has been served on the Borrower- Appellant by post. Thereafter, the Bank published the public notice for sale of assets on 17.04.2017 wherein the date of auction was scheduled to be 19.05.2017. Thus, the immovable property situated at Plot No.481/823, Khata No. 372/163, area 0.087 dec. standing in the name of Pradeep Kumar Sahu was sold to one Bimal Kumar Agarwal and others. Accordingly, Sale Certificate was issued on 17.06.2017 and thereafter the auction purchaser has converted his name in the ROR issued by Tehsildar, Cuttack, Sadar. The Notice U/r.8(6) SARFASI Rules has been served on Shri Pradeep Kumar Sahu through post and served on Smt. Arati Sahu also through post. Thus, the Bank has complied with the mandatory requirements of the SARFAESI Act read with SARFAESI Rules.

Rule-8(6) of SARFAESI Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 stipulates that-"the Authorized Officer shall serve to the borrower a notice of thirty days for sale of the immovable secured assets, under Sub- rule (5); " Provided that if the sale of such secured assets is being effected by either inviting tenders from the public or by holding

16

public auction, the secured creditor shall cause a public notice in the form given in Appendix IV-A to be published in two leading newspaper including one in vernacular language having wide circulation in the locality"

In view of the clear cut provisions of law as envisaged in the said rule, the notice under Rule 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 provides that the Authorised Officer shall serve to the borrower a notice of 30 days for sale of the immovable secured assets, under sub-rule 5.

From the perusal of the record it is seen that the notice under Rule 8(6) was issued to the applicant, the bank issued letter dated 13.04.2017 under Rule 8(6) of the SARFAESI Rules and served on the Borrower, Shri Pradeep Kumar Sahu and Smt. Arati Sahu through post. As such, there is no violation of Rule 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 by the Respondent Bank Accordingly issue No.(iii) is answered.

10. Issue No.(iv):- Whether the Respondent Bank has sold the property in favour of a single bidder in violation of SARFAESI Act and Rules?

The contention of the applicant is that the mortgaged properties has been sold in favour of a single bidder i.e. defendants No.4 to 6 for a paltry sum of Rs.1.09 crores.

The contention of the Respondent Bank is that after rejection of the representation further action for realization of the bank dues was taken by the defendant bank. The mortgaged property in question was duly put to auction by the bank and defendants No.4, 5 and 6 have bidded the auction property jointly.

From the perusal of the record it is seen that the property has been sold to the defendants No.4, 5 and 6 who are the highest bidder and offer more than the reserve price. No, there's no bar in the SARFAESI Act to selling a property to a single bidder as long as the sale is conducted fairly and the property is not sold below the

17

reserve price. It is also a fact that there is no impediment in the SARFAESI Act to declare a single bidder as successful bidder. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case this Tribunal is of the view that the Respondent Bank has not acted against provisions under SARFAESI Act and Rules by selling the mortgaged property to a single bidder. Accordingly issue No.(iv) is answered.

11. Issue No.V:-Whether schedule mortgaged property is a jalasaya which is exempted under Section 31 of the SARFAESI Act?

The case of the applicant is that the schedule property under challenge is a Jalasaya(pond) which is mortgaged to the bank. The contention of the Respondent Bank is that the applicant had constructed a house over the said land which is alleged to be Jalasaya. Though it is a Jalasaya(pond) but it does not exists as on date and a building is standing over the said land.

From the perusal of the record it is seen that the applicant has admitted that there is a building standing over the said land. As such it is held that the property mortgaged is not a Jalasaya and the bank is entitled to proceed over the said property in accordance to law. Accordingly issue No.(v) is answered.

12. Issue No.(vi):- Whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

From the perusal of the record it is seen that after availing the credit facilities from the bank, the applicants did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the sanction and did not clear the amount despite several correspondences and request from the bank for which the said loan accounts of the applicant became NPA. Thereafter the Respondent Bank had initiated the actions against the applicant under

18

the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. But the Applicant failed to prove that 30 days notice under Rule 8(6) has not been served on the applicant. Further more the Respondent Bank has sold the property as per provisions enshrined under the SARFAESI Act and Rules. No violation has been made by the Respondent Bank.

In view of the aforesaid discussion made above, and the issues already answered in the preceding paragraphs and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, this Tribunal is of the view that decisions cited by the applicant is not applicable to the facts of this case whereas the decisions cited by the Respondent Bank and the auction purchaser are applicable to the facts of this case. Further more the Hon'ble High Court has directed the applicant to vacate the house in question i.e. schedule property to the Respondent Bank and the Hon'ble High Court has never questioned the action of the Bank and thought it illegal. In view of the discussion made above, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant failed to prove its case and the Respondent Bank has established its case. Therefore, the instant SA bearing SA No.48/2024 is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. Accordingly Issue No.(vi) is answered.

O R D E R

19

In the result, S.A. No.48 of 2024 is hereby dismissed declaring the notices under 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act so also the auction sale notice are valid as the same are as per law and no violation has been made by the Respondent Bank while initiating action under the SARFAESI Act.

Since the main SA is disposed of, hence all the IAs, pending, if any, stands disposed of and interim order, if any, stands vacated. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith as per rules.

Let the file of SA No.48 of 2024 be consigned to the record room. This order is dictated and corrected by me and pronounced in the open Court under my signature, this the 21^stday of March, 2025.

(Jitendra Prasad Singh) Presiding Officer.

20