Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that so far as the description of the scheduled property put to auction is concerned, from the stage when the initial notice was issued by the respondent Bank (secured creditor) under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the mortgaged property was described as “Door No.12­3­ 393” instead of “Door No.12­3­39”, but it was never the case of the respondent borrowers either before the Tribunal or before the High Court that the description in the e­auction sale notice indicating the boundaries, measurement, ward number, block number, TS number and extent of land, etc. left any ambiguity or confusion in the minds of the participants in the e­auction bid and it was also not the case of the respondent borrowers that there is some other property in the locality/vicinity with the number as indicated in the e­auction sale notice i.e. “12­3­393”. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances, merely because there appears to be a typographical inadvertent human error in reference to door number of the subject property may not leave ambiguity with regard to mortgaged property put to auction and this typographical error is inconsequential and does not vitiate the e­auction sale proceedings held on 28th March, 2015.

36. We find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant for the reason that so far as the error in the description of door number of the property is concerned, which admittedly indicated throughout as “12­3­393” instead of “12­3­ 39”, but the fact is that the description of the mortgaged property from the commencement of the proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, due to human error instead of “12­3­39”, door number was indicated as “12­3­393”, but admittedly the fact is that there is no such property available in the locality/vicinity with Door no.”12­3­393” and as full description of the mortgaged property was mentioned/indicated, although there was a typographical error, but the respondent borrowers failed to demonstrate any prejudice being caused on account of the inadvertent error being caused in description of the mortgaged property. At the same time, the borrower failed to demonstrate that because of a typographical inadvertent error in door number, as indicated above, the property could not have fetched the value as it ought to have fetched and that apart, there was no documentary evidence placed on record to substantiate the kind of prejudice, if any, being caused.