Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

xiii) As regards quashing of the action initiated by the Petitioner for sale of the secured assets, the learned DRAT was of the view that Rule 8 (2) of the Rules, 2002 explicitly provides that the notice of possession shall be published in two newspaper not later than 7 days of taking over the possession. Thus, there was breach of the mandatory provisions of Rule 8(2) of the said Rules 2002.

7 The learned counsel for the Petitioner strenuously urged that the DRT as well as DRAT committed manifest error in quashing and setting aside the action initiated by the Petitioner for enforcement of security interest on the premise that there was breach of the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 8(2) of the Rules 2002. The learned counsel for the Petitioner advanced two-pronged submission. One, there was no breach on the part of the Petitioner and its predecessor-in- title in compliance with any of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. Secondly, the DRT and DRAT had fallen into error in construing Rule 8(2) of the said Rules, as mandatory. It was submitted that the phraseology of Rule 8(2) and non- prescription of any consequence of non-observance of the condition of publication of the possession notice in the newspapers within 7 days, lead to the only conclusion that spb/ wp736-768-17.odt seven days time for publication of the possession notice in the newspapers is directory.

16 We have given our anxious consideration to the aforesaid submission on behalf of the Petitioner. It is pertinent to note that an endeavor is made on behalf of the Petitioner to demonstrate that the question turns upon the construction of Rule 8(2) of Rules 2002 only i.e. whether its compliance is mandatory or directory. Indeed the learned Chairperson of the DRAT observed that the use of the word 'shall' in Rule 8(2) of the said Rules, leads to a plain meaning and construction of the said provision as mandatory. However, upon a close scrutiny of the facts and material on record and the observations of the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, we find that the DRT negatived the claim of the Petitioner on the count of non-compliance with the Rule 8(2) of the said Rules, within the stipulated period of seven days, in the alternative. The principal ground was that the possession notice was not given to the borrower and it was not published in the newspaper. The DRT expressly observed that the purported notice dated 31.03.2011 was not a possession notice within the meaning of section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.