Sri Rahul Mashahary Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. - Accordingly, there is no requirement for issuance of two separate notices under Rules 8(6) and 9(1) of the Rules. Since the instant sale was a subsequent sale, only 15 days’ notice was required, which was duly given by the secured creditor.

  DRAT Kolkata (2025.11.17) in Sri Rahul Mashahary Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. [(2025) ibclaw.in 270 DRAT, Appeal No. 61 of 2024] held that; 

• Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 12174 of 2025 (M. Rajendran & Ors. vs. M/s KPK Oils and Proteins India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.) [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2036], decided on 22.09.2025, wherein it was held that a composite notice under Rules 8(6) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 can be issued by the secured creditor.

• Accordingly, there is no requirement for issuance of two separate notices under Rules 8(6) and 9(1) of the Rules. Since the instant sale was a subsequent sale, only 15 days’ notice was required, which was duly given by the secured creditor.

• As far as the deposit of Rs. 70,00,000/- is concerned, that amount was deposited by the appellant as a pre-deposit in this appeal as required under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The said amount cannot be treated as an amount deposited for the purpose of redemption, and the appellant cannot claim any advantage of it in the present appeal.

Blogger’s Comments;  With the amended provision under section 13(8), the borrower losses right of redemption of the property from the date of publication of notice for public auction or inviting quotations or tender from public or private treaty for transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale of the secured assets, With the amended provision under section 13(8), the logic & purpose of issuing notice to the borrower  under Rule 8(6) has been lost, which was to provide an opportunity to the borrower for redemption before sale of mortgaged property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court could have reconciled the legislative intent behind amended section 13(8) & Rule 8(6). 

Excerpts of the Order;

# 1. Instant appeal has arisen against the judgment and order dated 7th December, 2023 passed by the Learned DRT, Guwahati in E-DRT Dy. No. 683 of 2023 in I.A. No. 644 of 2023 (Sri Rahul Mashahary vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr), whereby the Learned DRT dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

# 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

# 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a borrower of the respondents. He availed a credit facility of Rs. 70,00,000/- on 31.10.2017, and an equitable mortgage was created in favour of the secured creditor. Loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA on 02.05.2022. A notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 09.05.2022, which was duly served, but no representation was filed. Thereafter, a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 27.07.2022, which was also published in English and Assamese newspapers and affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured assets.

# 4. E-auction sale notices were issued fixing 23.01.2023, 20.02.2023, 15.03.2023 and 06.04.2023, but none of the attempts succeeded. Consequently, e-auction was conducted on 04.05.2023. The sale notice was published on 12.12.2023, and the e-auction was successfully conducted in favour of respondent no. 3. The sale certificate was issued on 29.05.2023. Registration of the sale certificate is not mandatory in view of the Government of Assam, Judicial Department Circular No. E-247839/4 dated 03.01.2023. An order under Section 14 of the Act was also obtained from the District Magistrate, Kokrajhar on 28.08.2023.

# 5. In the meantime, the appellant filed a civil suit before the Civil Court, wherein an interim order was passed directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 40,00,000/-. However, the said condition was not complied with, and the civil suit was subsequently dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

# 6. A writ petition was also filed by the appellant before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court, which too was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act on the ground that there were illegalities committed in the notices issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4), and challenged the e-auction conducted by the bank.

# 7. The SARFAESI application was dismissed by the Learned DRT, holding that the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act were duly issued, published, and served; that the e-auction conducted in the sixth attempt was in accordance with law; and that the order under Section 14 of the Act dated 28.08.2023, passed by the District Magistrate, Kokrajhar, was a legal and valid order. The Learned DRT found no illegality committed by the District Magistrate and further observed that the validity of the sale certificate had not been challenged. It was also held that the right of redemption extinguishes on the date of publication of the sale notice. Accordingly, the Learned DRT dismissed the application under Section 17 of the Act.

# 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to redeem the property, as he has already deposited an amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- as pre-deposit in the appeal. It was further submitted that the e-auction sale notice was issued on 04.05.2023, and the notice under Rule 8(6) was published on 06.05.2023, with the sale fixed on 24.05.2023, which, according to him, was contrary to law and deprived the appellant of the right of redemption. It was also argued that the challenge to the order passed under Section 14 of the Act included a challenge to the legality of the e-auction notice.

# 9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the instant e-auction was conducted in the sixth attempt by the secured creditor. The e-auction notice dated 04.05.2023 was published on 06.05.2023, and the auction was held on 24.05.2023, strictly in accordance with law. Learned counsel placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 12174 of 2025 (M. Rajendran & Ors. vs. M/s KPK Oils and Proteins India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.) [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2036], decided on 22.09.2025, wherein it was held that a composite notice under Rules 8(6) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 can be issued by the secured creditor.

# 10. It was further submitted that the appellant did not challenge the sale notice and that the e-auction was conducted in accordance with the Rules. Respondent no. 3, who was declared the successful purchaser, complied with the provisions of Rules 9(3) and 9(4) of the Rules, 2002, and the sale certificate was issued on 29.05.2023. Hence, no challenge can now be made by the appellant, as the sale has been concluded and the right of redemption has been extinguished. It was also contended that the appellant made no effort for settlement prior to publication of the e-auction sale notice, and therefore cannot derive any advantage from the pendency of proceedings under Section 17 of the Act.

# 11. As far as the facts are concerned, they are undisputed. The appellant is the borrower of the respondent bank. The loan account was classified as NPA on 02.05.2022. Notice under Section 13(2) was issued on 09.05.2022. No representation under Section 13(3A) was made by the appellant. Notice under Section 13(4) was issued on 27.07.2022, duly served and published in two newspapers—one in English and one in Assamese—and affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured asset. No challenge was made by the appellant at that stage.

# 12. Thereafter, five unsuccessful attempts were made to sell the secured asset through e-auction on 13.01.2023, 14.02.2023, 10.03.2023, 31.03.2023, and 24.04.2023. Subsequently, on 04.05.2023, a fresh e-auction sale notice was issued and published on 06.05.2023. The e-auction was held on 24.05.2023, wherein respondent no. 3 was declared the successful bidder, who complied with the provisions of Rules 9(3) and 9(4) of the Rules, 2002, and deposited the amount in accordance with law. The auction sale was confirmed, and the sale certificate was issued in favour of respondent no. 3.

# 13. An order under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 was thereafter passed by the District Magistrate, Kokrajhar, on 28.08.2023, which was challenged by the appellant by filing an application under Section 17, and which came to be dismissed by the Learned DRT, Guwahati.

# 14. In the meantime, the appellant unsuccessfully attempted to obtain interim relief by filing a civil suit before the Civil Court, wherein an interim order was passed imposing a condition to deposit Rs. 40,00,000/-. The said condition was not complied with, and the suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. During the pendency of SARFAESI proceedings, a writ petition filed before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court was also dismissed.

# 15. The only issue that arises for consideration is whether any illegality was committed by the secured creditor in conducting the e- auction sale. Admittedly, this was the sixth sale attempt.

# 16. In M. Rajendran (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows:

“(97). The objects and reasons for the Amendment of the SARFEASI Act was to facilitate expeditious disposal of recovery applications. Taking the same into consideration, the Court noted that an interpretation which furthers the said object and reasons should be preferred and adopted. If the general law is allowed to govern, it will defeat the very object and purpose of the amended Section 13(8).

“(155). All the other provisions pertaining to the notice of sale, namely the Proviso to Rule 8(6), Rule 8(7) and Rule 9(1), only govern the manner in which such notice of sale contemplated under Rule 8(6), has to be given. The said rules only go so far as to stipulate certain additional conditions or requirements in effectuating the notice of sale under Rule 8(6), but do not by any stretch stipulate the requirement for causing a completely separate and distinct notice, in addition to the notice of sale under Rule 8(6) of the SARFAESI Rules.

“(156). In the entire gamut of the scheme formed by Rule(s) 8(6), the Proviso thereto, 8(7) and 9(1), all speak of only one single composite notice of sale, the only difference between these provisions, is the manner in which such notice of sale is to be effectuated and given. Rule 8(6) speaks of serving the notice of sale to borrower for a period of thirty-days. On the other hand, where the public is sought to be involved in sale process, either by auction or by inviting tender, then the same notice of sale has to be published in the newspaper. As per Rule 8(7), apart from serving the notice of sale and / or causing it in a newspaper, as the case may be, the self-same notice of sale has to also be affixed on the conspicuous part of the immovable secured asset and also uploaded on the website of the secured creditor.

“(157). Thus, it can be seen from above, that Rule 8(6) and the Proviso appended to it, Rule 8(7) and Rule 9(1) of the SARFAESI Rules all speak of only one single notice of sale. The distinction lies only in the manner in which it is to be given, inasmuch as under Rule(s) 8(6), Proviso thereto, 8(7) and 9(1), the same notice is required to be served to the borrower, published in the newspaper, affixed on the secured asset & uploaded on the website, and maintain a 30-day gap from the date of actual sale, respectively. Despite the variance in the manner in which the notice of sale is to be given or effectuated under the aforesaid rules, it nevertheless still continues to be one single composite notice only.

“(169). From the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding the following: –

• i. Rule(s) 8(6), the Proviso thereto, Rule 8(7) and Rule 9(1) of the SARFAESI Rules do not speak of any separate or distinct notice of sale that is required to be issued by the secured creditor for the transfer of the secured asset by way of lease, assignment or sale in accordance with any of the methods enumerated in Rule 8(5).

• ii. The different manner in which the notice of sale has to be served, caused, published, affixed, uploaded as stipulated in Rule(s) 8(6) and 8(7) of the SARFAESI Rules, do not constitute separate notices of sale by themselves, they are part and parcel of one single composite intended “notice of sale” of the secured asset by the secured creditor, by any of the mode of sale listed in Rule 8(5). All of the aforesaid rules are concerned with a single composite “notice of sale”, and the only distinction between the said rules, is the manner in which the said “notice of sale” has to be given, on the basis of which relevant rule or rules are applicable, as the case may be.

• iii. Similarly, the stipulation under Rule 9(1) of a thirty-days gap between the date of publication of notice of sale and the date of actual sale does not impute a distinct characteristic to the public notice in the newspaper in contrast to the notice of sale that is served to the borrower. As is evident from Appendix IV-A to the SARFAESI Rules, the public notice of sale in newspaper as-well the notice of sale served to the borrower are one and the same, for the purpose of Rule 9(1).

• iv. The embargo enshrined under Rule 9(1), that no sale, in the first instance shall take place before the expiry of thirty-days, would be reckoned from the date of issuance of the “notice of sale”, which would include both the public notice of sale in the newspaper and the service thereof to the borrower, whichever is later.

• v. Under Rule 8(6) read with Rule 9(1) both the notice of sale can be served as-well as published in the newspaper, simultaneously on the same date. All that is required under Rule 9(1) is that thirty-day gap is maintained between when the notice of sale is served, affixed and published, whichever is later, as the case may be, till the date of actual sale.”

# 17. Accordingly, there is no requirement for issuance of two separate notices under Rules 8(6) and 9(1) of the Rules. Since the instant sale was a subsequent sale, only 15 days’ notice was required, which was duly given by the secured creditor.

# 18. As far as the deposit of Rs. 70,00,000/- is concerned, that amount was deposited by the appellant as a pre-deposit in this appeal as required under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The said amount cannot be treated as an amount deposited for the purpose of redemption, and the appellant cannot claim any advantage of it in the present appeal.

# 19. The sale has already been concluded, and the sale certificate has been issued, which does not require registration in view of the Government of Assam, Judicial Department Circular No. E-247839/4 dated 03.01.2023. Hence, the entire process stands completed.

# 20. No challenge to the order passed by the Learned District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act has been made by the appellant.

# 21. On the basis of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the Learned DRT, Guwahati has rightly dismissed I.A. No. 644 of 2023 arising out of E-DRT Dy. No. 683 of 2023. I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 7th December 2023 passed by Learned DRT, Guwahati in I.A No. 644 of 2023 arising out of EDRT Dy No. 683 of 2023 is confirmed.

No order as to costs.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Copy of the Judgment/ Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.

----------------------------------------------------