Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. The DRAT upon considering the issues, was pleased to pass orders by setting aside the order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the DRT to the extent of sale notice dated 23.05.2022 on the ground of violation of mandatory provisions of Rule 8(6) and 9(1) of the 2002 Rules and also set aside the e-auction sale conducted on 27.06.2022.

17. Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the auction purchaser contended that the borrower, who is the appellant before the learned DRAT, has not challenged the findings of the DRAT in relation to all other contentions of the borrower in the appeal. It is further contended that the learned DRAT on a mistaken understanding of the judgment of Celir LLP v/ s. Bafna M otors (M um bai) (P ) Lim ited 1 passed the impugned order, setting aside the auction. The confusion with respect to the question of law by the learned DRAT that there should be a gap of 30 days between the issuance of Rule 8(6) notice and Rule 9 publication is clarified by the Apex Court in M .R ajendran v/ s. K P K Oils and P roteins I ndia P rivate Lim ited 2 . The finding with respect to the question of law by the learned DRAT that there should be a gap of 30 days between the issuance of Rule 8(6) notice and Rule 9 publication is not valid and held to be unsustainable.

19. Smt.Vidya Rani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank of India, in W.P.No.14351 of 2024 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 in W.P.No.12412 of 2024 while adopting the arguments of the auction purchaser, contended that the learned DRAT through its order dated 22.04.2024 made no discussion about Rule 8(6) notice or Rule 9(1) publication except narration of various judgments. It is also not clear as to how and on which aspect bank committed violation of Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules. It is further contended that admittedly notice for sale of secured assets under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rules 8(6) and 9(1) of the 2002 Rules was issued on 23.05.2022 fixing the date of sale as 27.06.2022 and the notice was published in the newspapers on 26.05.2022 and affixed on the secured asset on 24.05.2022 and was acknowledged by the borrower on 25.05.2022. The DRAT failed to appreciate that the rule 9(1) of the rules is not a separate notice to be given by the bank to the borrower apart from the notice under rule 8(6) of the rules.

21. Learned counsel contended that the borrower has taken inconsistent and contradictory stands at different stages of the proceedings. Before the DRT, the borrower claimed that no notice under Rule 8(6) was ever served. However, before the DRAT, in Ground No. 14 of the appeal, it was contended that the sale notice was served on 31-05-2022. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P. No.12412 of 2024, there was no specific plea regarding service, and the argument was limited to the absence of a 30-day gap. Subsequently, 32015(5) SCC 574 in W.P. No. 14351 of 2024, it was stated that the notice was served on 31-05-2022, while during oral submissions it was claimed to have been served on 04-06-2022. These shifting stands clearly demonstrate the falsity and unreliability of the borrower's case, rendering the contention liable to be rejected outright. The clarification is provided by the Bank in its rejoinder that the communication dated 04-06-2022 pertained only to forwarding publication copies, and that the two notices referred to relate respectively to Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1) further negates the borrower's claims.

39. It is further observed that the borrower has taken mutually inconsistent stands at different stages of the proceedings, which affects the credibility of his case. Before DRT, the borrower contended that no notice under Rule 8(6) was served upon him. However, before the DRAT, a contrary plea was taken that the notice was served on 31.05.2022. In the writ proceedings, the borrower has again shifted his stand by asserting that the notice was served on 04.06.2022. Such contradictory statements, without any cogent explanation, show that the borrower is adjusting his case depending on the forum.