Supreme Court of India
CANARA BANKversusM. AMARENDER REDDY & ANR.
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 1270
- Decided
- 2 March 2017
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- DIPAK MISRA
Holding
The secured creditor may serve the 30‑day individual notice of intention to sell and the public notice of sale at the same time; only a 30‑day interval between such notice and the actual sale is required.
Summary
Canara Bank, the secured creditor, sought to enforce its security over an immovable property pledged by the guarantor M. Amaren... after the borrower defaulted. The bank issued a possession notice, valued the property, and then served a notice of intention to sell together with a public e‑auction notice, fixing the sale date within 30 days. The High Court held that a separate 30‑day individual notice must precede any public notice and that the mode of sale could not be decided until after that period, thereby invalidating the bank's sale notice. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and held that the individual notice and the public notice may be issued simultaneously, the only requirement being a 30‑day gap between the notice and the actual sale. Consequently, the High Court’s interpretation was reversed and the bank’s sale process was deemed valid. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- The interpretation of Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and Rule 9(1) regarding whether a separate 30‑day individual notice to the borrower is mandatory before issuing a public notice of sale.
- Whether the public notice of sale under sub‑rule 6 of Rule 8 can be issued simultaneously with the individual notice of intention to sell.
- Whether a separate notice is required before the secured creditor decides the mode of sale of the secured asset.
- The effect of the High Court’s construction of the term ‘or’ in Rule 9(1) as ‘and’ on the statutory requirement of notice.
Legislation cited
- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002s. 13(2), s. 13(4), s. 13(8)
Subjects
SARFAESI ActSecurity Interest (Enforcement) Rulesnotice of salepublic auctionsecured creditorimmovable propertynotice periodinterpretation of rulessale of secured asset
Judgment
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 748
A CANARA BANK
v.
M. AMARENDER REDDY & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3411 of2017)
B MARCH 02, 2017
[DIPAK MISRA, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002:
C rr. 8(6) rlw. 1: 9- Notice under - Of intention of sale - l~suance
of - Held: The secured credit01~ is required to give a 30 days
individual notice of intention of sale in addition to public notice for
sale u/r. 8(6) - But both the notices i.e. individual notice as well as
public notice can be issued simultaneously - r.8(6) does not require
that the public notice u/r. 8(6) can be issued only after the expiry of
D 30 days from issuance of individual notice - The only restriction is
to give thirty days time-gap between such notice and the date of
sale of the immovable secured asset.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Possession notice is distinct from the notice for
E sale of the secured asset. In that, possession notice is rcq uired
to be given in terms of Rule 8(1) read with 8(2) of Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Whereas, a notice of intention of sale
is required to be given to the borrower in terms of Ruic 9(1)
read with Rule 8(6) of the said Rules. This is to give intimation to
F the borrower about the proposed date of sale to be held after the
statutory period of thirty days ..Further, in case of sale of the
secured assets, either by inviting tenders from the public or by
holding public auction being the mode permitted by sub-rule (5)
of Rule 8, the secured creditor is required to give a public notice
in two leading newspapers in terms of the proviso in sub-rule (6)
G of Rule 8. Such public notice, however, may not be necessary in
case of sale of a secured asset, if it is by way of the other modes
specified in Sub-clause (a) or (d) of sub-rule (5) of Rule 8, to wit,
by obtaining quotations from the persons dealing with similar
secured assets ·or otherwise interested in buying such asset; or
by private treaty. [Para 11)(761-B-E]
H
748.
CANARA BANK v. M. AMARENDER REDDY 749
2. The secured creditor, after it decides to proceed with A
the sale of secured asset consequent to taking over possession
(symbolic or physical as the case may be), is no doubt required
· to give a notice of 30 days for sale of the immovable asset as per
sub-rule 6 of Rule 8. However, there is nothing in the Rules,
either express or implied, to take the view that a public notice
B
under sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 must be issued only after the expiry
of 30 days from issuance of individual 11otice by the authorized
officer to the borrower about the intention to sell the immovable
secured asset. In other words, it is permissible to simultaneously
issue notice to the borrower about the intention to sell the secured
assets and also to issue a public notice for sale of such secured c
asset by inviting tenders from the public or by holding public
auction. The only restriction is to give thirty days' time-gap
between such notice and the date of sale of the immovable secured
asset. [Para 12][761-F-II]
3. Thus, the High Court has committed a manifest error in D
assuming that the notice of intention of sale to be given to the
borrower and a public notice for sale, cannot be simultaneously
issued. The High Court was also not right in observing that after
a notice regarding intention to sell the secured asset under sub-
rule (6) of Rule 8 is given by the authorized officer to the borrower,
only on expiry of 30 days therefrom, can the secured creditor E
take a decision about the mode of sale referred to in sub-rule (5)
of Rule 8 after giving notice to the borrower and then issue a
public notice after expiry of further thirty days. By this
interpretation, the High Court has virtually re-written the
provisions and inevitably extended the time-frame of 30 days F
specified in sub-rule (6) of Ruic 8 (atleast in relation to the sale
of secured asset by inviting tenders from the public or by holding
public auction). [Para 13] [762-A-C]
Mathew Varghese vs. Amritha Kumar and Ors. (2014)
5 SCC 610 : (2014) 2 SCR 736 - referred to G
Case Law Reference
[2Q14] 2 SCR 736 referred to Paras
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDJCTION : Civil Appeal No. 3411
of20l 7.
H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 I 7] 3 S.C .R.
A From the Judgment and Order elated I I .04.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State ofTelangana and the State of
Andhra Pradesh in WP No. 39735 of2015.
Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Rajesh Kumar, Rakesh Chaurasiya, Anant
Gautam (for M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co.), Advs. for Appellant.
B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. I. This appeal by the appellant bank
questions the view expressed by the Division Bench of the High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State ofTelangana and the State of
Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.39735 of20 I 5 dated I 1.04.2016 to
c the extent it has held that Rule 8 (6) r.ead with Rule 9 of the Security_
Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short 'the said Rules') mandates ·
that the secured creditor must put the borrower on a separate individual
notice prior to deciding on the mode of sale of the secured asset. Further,
such notice should be in addition to the notice of30 days duration to be
D given by the secured creditor conveying its intention to put the secured
asset on sale, which is .mandatory. The relevant portion of the High
Court decision, which is impugned in this appeal reads thus:
"
The Supreme Court has clearly enunciated that a reading of
E sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 and sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Rules
togethe1~ the service of individual notice to the borrower
specifying a cledr 30 days time gap for effecting sale of
immovable secured asset is a Statutory mandate. Hence, use
of the expression 'or 'found in Rule 9(1) of the Rules is only
F appropriate to be read as 'and', as that alone would be in
consonance with sub-section (8) of Section 13 of the Act.
We may also add that a notice of intended sale by providing
a clear 30 days time to the borrower preceding any decision
to sell away the secured.asset would, in fact, be in
consonance with the mandate of the provision contained in
G
sub-section (8) of Section 13 of the Act, as it is too well
known that the Rules made under a Statute are only
essentially intended to secure effective implementation of the
provisions contained in the Statute. In our opi11io11, therefore,
putting the .borrower on notice of 30 days duration by the
H secw;ed creditor conveying the intention to put the secured
CANARA BANK v. M. AMARENDER REDDY 751
[A. M. KHANWl)-KAR, J.]
asset to sale is mandatory. Such notjce ll'ould be applicable . A
even if the secured creditor later on decides lo adopt any
one of those (our methods provided in clauses {a) to (d) of
sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 of the Rules. As ll'as already noticed
supra, in cases of obtaining quotations ji·om persons deali11g
with similar secured assets a11d also by entering into a private
B
treaty, may not require publication of the inte1ided .sale in
newspapers. Hence, 11'ithout, first of all, putting the borrower
on notice, threatening that the prospects of liquidation of
!}1e secured asset by any of the methods specified under sub-
rule (5) of rule 8 of the Rules would not only sub-serve the
·object behind sub-section (8) of Section 13 of the Act, but c
would, in fact, .ei1ha11ce the e(ficacy of iealizinglsecuritizing
the secured asset. As was already held by us, the secured
asset is liable to be sold only in the event of default persisting
in liquidating the liability. In other. words, only when the
borrow~r commits ~ default in payment of the outstanding
D
liability, in spite of the notice threatening with intended sale
of the secured asset, the actual sale notification can follm1\
but not otherwise.
In the instant case, the secured creditor has put the
borrower on· one sihgle notice of sale. which was also
published in two newspapers, but, he has not put the. E
borrower on a separate individual notice prior to deciding
on the mode of sale of the 'secifred asset. For this re'asoi1,
we are of the 'opinion. that the sale undertaken pursuant to
the sale notification is viiiated for want of not providing the
opportunity of 30 days clear time before undertaking the F
. actual sale". (emphasis supplied)
2.' On that reaso1iing, the High Com1 concluded that the subject
sale notification issued by the appellant did not conform to the stated
mandatory requirement and' was thus vitiated on that count. The High
Court, however, preserved the remedy of the appellant bank to proceed G
further, including to resort to sale of the secured asset, ifthe borrower
has failed to clear the outstanding liability, by' publishing a fresh sale
notification in accordance with sub-rule 6 of Rule 8 read with Rule 9 of
the Rules.
3. Briefly stated, the appellant had provided financial assistance H
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.
A of Rs. one crore to M/s Eversure Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The
respondent no.I was one of the two guarantors for the said loan
transaction. The respondent no. I had offered his immovable property as
security, bearing Plot No. 70, admeasuring 278 square yards situated in
Survey No.66/6, Ward No. 3, Block No.7 in Mansoorabad village,
B. Saroornagar Mandal, L.B. Nagar Municipality, which has now become
part of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.
4. As the principal borrower committed default, the appellant bank
issued a demand notice dated 25.01.2014 to it under Section 13(2) of
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "2002 Act"). The
c appellant bank then issued possession notice under Section 13 (4) of
2002 Act on 24.06.2014. The possession notice was published in two
leading newspapers. After taking symbolic possession of the secured
asset, the upset price at Rs.69,75,000/- thereof was determined, as per
the valuation report of the approved valuer. That upset price was accepted
D by the appellant bank. Whereafter, a notice of sale (e-auction notice)
was issued on 15. J0.2015. Notice in terms of Rule 8(6) was also given
to the principal borrower and both the guarantors, including the respondent
no.I, to give them one last and final opportunity to discharge the debt
within 30 days from the date of the said notice. A copy of e-auction
notice was also enclosed along with the said communication served on
E
the borrower and the guarantors, indicating that the sale date was fixed
as 21.11.2015. The respondent no.I (guarantor), on 04.11.2015, requested
the appellant bank to permit him to avail of one time settlement of dues
by offering Rs.SO lacs in two installments. That ofier was rejected by
the appellant bank, as it was not in consonance with the RBI guidelines.
F As per the e-auction notice, the auction was held on 2I.11.2015. The
property was sold to one Sri Jonnalagadda Rajashekher Reddy s/o Sri
Venkatram Reddy who was the highest bidder, for an amount of
Rs. 73,25,000/-. The respondent no. I vi de letter dated 01.12.2015
requested the Bank to furnish information about thee-auction. The said
letter was replied to by the appellant bank.
G
5. The respondent no. I then filed Writ Petition No.39735 of2015
before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad on 07.12.2015, for a
declaration that thee-auction notice dated 15.10.20 I 5 was i Ilegal and in
contravention of the provisions of the 2002 Act and Rules framed
thereunder. The said writ petition was opposed by the appellant on the
H assertion that necessary formalities were duly complied with before the
CANARA BANK v. M. AMARENDER REDDY 753
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
sale of the subject secured asset was undertaken by the appellant bank. A
The High Court, as aforesaid, took the view that a separate notice of30
days duration ought to have been given by the appellant to the writ
petitioner before the public notice fixing the date of auction/sale was
issued. Further, a thirty days notice to the borrower about intention to
sell the secured asset ought to precede the actual publication of sale
B
notification in the newspaper. Both these notices cannot be issued
simultaneously. For taking that view, the High Court construed Rule 8
(6) of the Rules to mean that a notice of intended sale of the secured
asset must be delinked from t)1e actual sale notification to be published
in two newspapers. Even though the appellant had relied on the dictum
of this Comt in the case of Mathew Varf(ltese Vs. M. Amritlw Kumar c
& otfters1, the High Court took the view that it was imperative for the
secured creditor to put the borrower on a notice of 30 days' duration
about the intention to sell the secured asset and the mode of sale. This
should precede the issuance of a public notice for sale.
: 6. In spite of notice, the respondent no. I has not chosen to appear. D
7. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant, in all fairness submitted that the auction sale conducted in the
present case on 21.11.2015 has not materialized as the auction purchaser
has backed out. In that sense, the appellant in any case may have to
issue a fresh auction notice, in view of the liberty given by the High E
Court in the operative part of the impugned judgment. He submits that,
however, as the observations made in the impugned judgment, as
highlighted hereinbefore, may come in the way of the appellantand other
banks or secured creditors, it is appropriate to examine the correctness
of the view taken by the High Court. Considering the above, we thought
it appropriate to examine the issue on hand. F
8. The purport and interplay ofthe provisions of the said Rules
had come up for consideration before this Court in Mathew Varghese
(Supra). On analyzing the gamut of the provisions, this Court opined
thatthe important feature of the provisions is that a free hand is given to
the secured creditor for the purpose of enforcing any security interest G
created in favour of the secured creditor without the intervention of the
Court or Tribunal. The only other relevant aspect was that such
enforcement should be in accordance with the provisions of the 2002
Act.
1
(2014) s sec 610 H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.
A 9. Before we embark upon the dictum in the said decision, we
deem it apposite to reproduce Rule 8 and 9 of the Rules of2002. The
same read thus:
"8. Sale of immovable secured assets. - 0) Where the
secured asses! is an immovable property. the authorized
B officer shall take or cause to be taken possession, by
delivering a possession notice prepared as nearly as possible
in Appendix IV to these rules, to the borrower and by affixing
the pos,i;ession notice on the outer door or at such
conspicuous place of the property.
c (2) [The possession notice as referred to in sub-rule (1) shall
also be published, as soon as possible but in any case not
later than seven days ji'Oln t~e date of taking possession, in
two leading, newspapers], one in vernacular language
having sufficient. circulation in that locality, by the
authorized officer.
D
- -- _
_.)
(3) In the event of possession of immovable property is
actually take.n by the authorized officer, such property shall
be kept in his own custody or in the custody of any person
authorized or appointed by him, who shall take as much
care of the property in his custody as a owner of ordinary
E prudence would, under the similar circumstances, take of
such property.
(4) The authorized officer shall take steps for preservation
and protection of secured assets and insure them, if
necessary, till they are sold or othenvise disposed of.
F
·(5) Before effecting sale of the immovable property referred
to in sub.-rule (1) of rule 9. the.authorized officer shall obtain
valuation of the property from an approved valuer and in
consultation with the secured creditor, fix the reserve price
.of the property and may sell the whole or any part of such
G immovable secured asset by any of the following methods:-
(a) by obtaining quotations ji·om the persons dealing with
similar secured assets' or otherwise interested in buying the
such assets; or
(b) by inviting tenders from the public;
H
CANARA BANK v. M. AMARENDER REDDY 755
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
(c) by holding public auction: or A
(d) by private treaty.
(6) The authorized officer shall serve to the borrower a notice
of thirty days for sale of the immovable secured assets, under
sub-rule (5):
B
Provided that ({the sale of such secured asset is being
effected by either inviting tenders jiwn the public or by
holding public auction, the secured creditor shall cause a
public notice in (WO leading newspapers one in vernacular
language having sufficient circulation in. the locality by
setting out the terms of sale, which shall include, - c
(a) The description of the immovable property to' be sold,
including the details of the encumbrances known to the
secured creditor;
(b) The secured debt for recove1J1 of which the property is to
D
be sold;
(c) Reserve price, below which the property may not be sold;
·(d). Time and place ofpublic auction or the time after which
·.'sale by any other mode shall, be completed;
E
.(e) Depositing earnest money a; may be stipulated by the
secured creditor;
(/) A1,1y other thing which the authorized officer considers it
material for a purchaser to know in orqer to judge the nature
and_ va{ue 9{ the property.
F
(1) Every notice of sale shall be affixed on a conspicuous
part of the immovable property and may, if the authorized
officer deems iffit, put on the web-site of the secured creditor
on the Internet. ·
(8) Sqle by any me~hod .other than public auction or public G
tender, shall be 011 such .terms as 111ay be settled between the
parties in writing.
9. Time of S(l/e, issues or s"/e certific"te mu/ delivery of
possessio11 etc.. -
{l) No sale of i111111ovable property under these rules shall H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.
A be take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date
on which the public notice of sale is published in new~papers
as referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (6) or notice of sale
has been served to the borrower.
(2) The sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser
B who has offered the highest sale price in his bid or tender
or quotation or offer to the authorized officer and shall be
subject to confirmation by the secured creditor:
Provided that no sale under this rule shall be confirmed, if
the amount offered by sale price is less than the reserve price,
c specified under sub-rule (5) of rule 9:
Provided further that if the authorized officer fails to obtain
a price higher than the reserve price, he may, with the consent
of the borrower and the secured creditor effect the sale at
such price.
D (3) On every sale of immovable properiy, the purchaser shall
immediately pay a deposit of twenty-jive per cent of the
amount of the sale price, to the authorized officer conducting
the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall
forthwith be sold again.
E (4) The balance amount of purchase price payable, shall be
paid by the purchaser to the authorized officer on or before
the fifteenth day of confir(nation of sale of the immovable
property or such extended period as may be agreed upon in
writing between the parties.
F (5) in default ofpayment within the period mentioned in sub-
rule (4), the deposit shall be forfeited and the property shall
be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claiin
to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be
subsequently sold.
G (6) On confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if
the terms ofpayment have been complied with, the authorized
officer exercising the power of sale shall issue a certificate
of sale of the immovable property in favour of the purchaser
in the form given in Appendix V to these rules.
H (7) Where the immovable property sold is subject to any
CANARA BANK v. M. AMARENDER REDDY 757
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
encumbrances, the authorized officer may, if he thinks fit, A
allow the purchaser to deposit with him the money required
to discharge the encumbrances and any interest due thereon
together with such additional amount that may be sufficient
to meet the contingencies or further cost, expenses and
interest as may be determi/1ed by him:
B
[Provided that if after meeting the cost of removing
encumbrances and contingencies there is any su!·plus
available out of the money deposited by the purchaser such
surplus shall be paid to the purchaser within fifteen days
from the date of finalization of the sale.]
c
(8) On such deposit of money for discharge of the
encumbrances, the authorized officer [shall] issue or cause
the purchaser to issue notices to the persons interested in or
entitled to the money deposited with him and take steps to
nw/ce the payment accordingly.
D
(9) The authorized officer shall deliver the property to the
purchaser free from encumbrances known to the secured
creditor on deposit of money as specified in sub-rule (7)
above.
(10) The certificate of sale issued under sub-rule (6) shall . E
specifically mention that whether the purchaser has
purchased the immovable secured asset free from any
encumbrances known to the secured creditor or not. "
10. Reverting to the decision in Mathew Vurgliese (supru), in
paragraphs 30, 31 and 33 of the said decision, the court observed thus: F
"30. Therefore, by virtue of the stipulations contained under
the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, in particular, Section
13(8), any sale or transfer of a secured asset, cannot take
place without duly informing the borrower of the time and
date of such sale or transfer in order to enable the borrower
G
to tender the dues of the secured creditor with all costs,
charges and expenses and any such sale or transfer effected
without complying with the said statutory requirement would
be a constitutional violation and nullify the ultimate sale.
31: Once the said legal position is ascertained, the statutory
H
7.58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.
A prescription contained in Rules 8 and 9 have also got lo be
examined as the said Rules prescribe as to the procedure to
be followed by a secured creditor while resorting to a sale
after the issuance of the proceedings under Sections 13(1)
to (4) of the SARFAESI Act. Under Rule 9 01. it is prescribed
that no sale of an immovable property under the Rules should
B
take place before the expiry· of 30 days from the date on
which the public notice ofsale is published in the newspapers
as referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 or
notice of sale has been served to the borrowe1: Sub-rule (6)
Qf_ Rule 8 agr1in states that the authorized offker should
c serve to the borrower a notice of30 days for the sale ofthe
immovable secured assets. Reading sub-ritle (6) of Rule 8
and sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 togethe1; the service o[individual
notice to the borrower, specifying clear 30 davs' time-gap
for effecting any sale of immovable secured asset is a
statutory mandate. It is also stipulated that no sale should
D
be affected before the expiry of 30 days from the date on
which the public notice of sale is published in the
newspapers. Therefore, the require111e11t. under Rule 8 (6) and
Rule 9 (1) contemplates a clear 30 days' individual notice to
the borrower and also a public notice by way of publication
E in the newspapers. In other words, while the publication in
newspaper should provide for 30 days' clear notice, since
Rule 9 (1) also states that such notice of sale is to be in
accordance with the proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 8, 30
days' clear notice to the borrower should also be ensured as
stipulated under Rule 8(6) as well. Therefore, the use of the
F expression "or" in rule 9(1) should be read as ""and" as
that alone would be in consonance with Section 13(8) of the
SARFAESI Act.
32. "' "' .............. "' ............... .
G 33. Such a detailed procedure while resorting to a sale of
.an immovable secured asset is prescribed under Rules 8 and
9(1). In our considered opinion, it has got a twin objective
to be achieved:
33.1. In the first place, as already stated by us, by virtue of
H the stipulation .contained in Section 13(8) read along with
CANARA Bf.NK v. M. AMARENDER REDDY 759
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
Rules 8(6) and 9(1), the owner/borrower should have clear A
notice of 30 days before the date and time when the sale or
transfer of the secured asset would be made, as that alone
would enable the owner/borrower to take all efforts to retain
his or her ownership by tendering the dues of the secured
creditor before that date and time.
B
33.2. Secondly, when such a secured asset of an immovable
property is brought for sale, the intending purchasers should
know the nature of the property, the extent of liability
pertaining to the said property, any other encumbrances
pertaining to the said property, the minimum price below
which one cannot make a bid and the total liability of the
c
borrower to the secured credi/01: Since. the proviso to sub-
rule (6) also mentions that any other material aspect should
also be made known when effecting the publication, it would
only mean that the intending purchaser should have entire
details about the property brought for sale in order to rule D
out any possibility of the bidders later on to express
ignorance about the/actors connected with the asset in
question.
33.3. Be that as it may, the pura11101111t objective is to provide
sufficient time and opportunity to the borrower to take all E
efforts to safeguard his right of ownership either by tendering
the dues to the creditor before the date and time of the sale
or transfer, or ensure that the secured asset derives the
maximum price and no one is allowed to exploit the
vulnerable situation in which the borrower is placed."
(emphasis supplied) F
Again in paragraph no. 35:
"35. Under sub-rule (4) of Rule 8, it is further stipulated
that the authorized officer should take steps for preservation
and protection of secured assets and insure them if necessary G
till they are sold or otherwise disposed of Sub-rule (4),
governs all secured assets, movable or immovable and a
further responsibility is created on the authorized officer to
take steps for the preservation and protection of secured
assets and for that purpose can even insure such assets,
until they are sold or otherwise disposed of Therefore. a H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.
A reading ofRules 8 and 9. in particular, sub-rules (1) to (4)
and (6) o[ Rule 8 and sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 111akes it clear
that si111ply because a secured interest in a secured asset is
created by the borrower in favour of the secured creditor.
the said asset in the event of the same having become a non-
Pfrfor111ing asset cannot be dealt with in a light-hearted
B
111anner by way o(sale or transfer or disposed ofin a casual
manner or by not adhering to the prescriptions contained
under the SARFAESI Act and the above said Rules 111entioned
by us." (emphasis supplied)
And again in paragraph no. 53:
c
"53. We, therefore. hold that unless and until a clear 30
days· notice is given to the borrower, no sale or transfer can
be resorted to by a secured creditor. In the event of any such
sale property notified after giving 30 days' clear notice to
the borrower did not take place as scheduled for reasons
D which cannot be solely attributable to the borrower, the
secured creditor cannot effect the sale or transfer of the
secured asset on any subsequent date by relying upon the
notification issued earlia In other words, mice the sale does
not take place pursuant to a notice issued under Rules 8
E and 9, read along with Section 13 (8) for which the entire
bla111e cannot be thrown on the borrower, it is imperative
that for effective the sale, the procedure prescribed above
will have to be followed afresh, as the notice issued earlier
would lapse. In that respect, the only other provision to be
noted is sub-rule (8) of Rule 8 as per which sale by any
F method other than public auction or public tender can be
on such terms as may be settled between the parties in writing.
As far as sub-rule (8) is ~oncerned, the parties referred to
can only relate to the secured creditor and the borrower. It
is, therefore, imperative that for the sale to be effected under
G Section 13(8), the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 read
along with Rule 9(1) has to be necessarily followed,
inasmuch as that is the prescription of the law for effecting
the sale as has been explained in detail by us in the earlier
paragraphs by referring to Sections 13(1). 13(8) and 37,
read along with Section 29 and Rule 15. In our considered
H
CANARA BANK v. M. A.MARENDER REDDY 761
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
. view any other construction will be doing violence to the A
provisions of the SARFAESI Act, in particular Sections 13(1)
and (8) of the said Act." (emphasis supplied)
11. In the impugned judgment, we find that the High Court has
quoted or relied upon sub-rule 6 of Rule 8 as dealing with "movable" B
secured assets. This is incorrect. For, the correct version of Rule 8( 6)
refers to "immovable" secured assets and not movable, as noted by the
High Court. Be that as it may, there is no difficulty in accepting the
observation of the High Court that possession notice is distinct from the
notice for sale of the secured asset. In that, possession notice is required
to be given in terms of Rule 8( 1) read with 8(2). Whereas, a notice of c
intention of sale is required to be given to the borrower in terms of Rule
9( I) read with Rule 8(6) of the said Rules. This is to give intimation to
the borrower about the proposed date of sale to be held after the statutory
period of thirty days. Further, in case of sale of the secured assets either
by inviting tenders from the public or by holding public auction being the D
mode permitted by sub-~ule 5 of Rule 8, the secured creditor is required
to give a public notice in two leading newspapers in terms of the proviso
in sub-rule 6 ofRule 8. Such public notice, however, may not be necessary
in case of sale of a secured asset if it is by way of the other modes
specified in Sub-clause (a) or (d) of sub-rule 5 of Rule 8, to wit, by
obtaining quotations from the persons dealing with similar secured assets E
or otherwise interested in buying the such asset; or by private treaty.
12. The secured creditor, after it decides to proceed with the sale
of secured asset consequent to taking over possession (symbolic or
physical as the case may be), is no doubt required to give a notice of30
days for sale of the immovable asset as per sub-rule 6 of Rule 8. However, F
there is nothing in the Rules, either express or implied, to take the view
that a public notice under sub-rule 6 of Rule 8 must be issued only after
the expiry of30 days from issuance ofindividual notice by the authorized
officer to the borrower about the intention to sell the immovable secured
asset. In other words, it is permissible to simultaneously issue notice to G
the borrower about the intention to sell the secured assets and also to
issue a public notice for sale of such secured asset by inviting tenders
from the public or by holding public auction. The only restriction is to
give thirty days' time gap between such notice and the date of sale of
the immovable secured asset. '
H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.
A 13. We hold that the High Court has committed a manifest error
in assuming that the notice of intention of sale to be given to the borrower
and a public notice for sale cannot be simultaneously issued.The High
Court was also not right in observing that aftera notice regarding intention
to sell the secured asset under sub-rule 6 of Rule 8 is given by the
authorized officer to the borrower, only on expiry of 30 days therefrom
B
can the secured creditor take a decision about the mode of sale referred
to in sub-rule 5 of Rule 8 after giving notice to the borrower and then
issue a public notice after expiry of further thirty days. By this
interpretation, the High Court has virtually re-written the provisions and
inevitably extended the time frame of30 days specified in sub-rule 6 of
c Rule 8 (atleast in relation to the sale of secured asset by inviting tenders
from the public or by holding public auction).
14. To put it differently, the only restriction placed on the secured
creditor is to serve a notice of30 days on the borrower intimating him
about its intention to sell the immovable secured asset and the mode and
D . date fixed for sale; and also to issue a public notice in two leading
newspapers, if the sale of such secured asset is effected either by inviting
tenders or by holding public auction, notifying the date of sale after 30
clear days from such notice. There is no need to wait for the expiry of
30 days from issuance of notice of intention to sell the secured asset
given to the borrower, for publication of a public notice for sale of such
E asset. Nor is there any requirement to give a separate individual notice
prior to deciding on the mode of sale of the secured asset. To the above
extent, the opinion of the High Court in the impugned judgment will have
to be overturned.
15. ln the present case, as the public auction sale held on 21.11.2015
F has not materialized, the appellant may have to resort to a fresh public
notice for sale of the secured asset of the respondent no. I, if the
outstanding liability is still unpaid and the sale is to be effected either by
inviting tenders from the publ_ic or by holding public auction.
16. The appeal succeeds in the above terms with no order as to
G costs.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "SARFAESI Act"Sign in to search