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.

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

Debendra Nath Vs Authorised Officer-cum- Chief Manager, Union Bank of India and Anr. - E-auction sale notice dated 20.02.2023 was issued against the specific provision of law wherein the debt due was wrongly calculated with interest @ 14.40% which is against the judgement and order passed by learned DRT in O.A. proceeding. Debt was also determined by the DRT. How Authorised Officer can increase the debt amount? When he has increased the amount of debt without any lawful authority it means that he has exceeded his powers.

  DRAT Kolkata (2025.07.17) in Debendra Nath Vs Authorised Officer-cum- Chief Manager, Union Bank of India and Anr. [(2025) ibclaw.in 171 DRAT, Appeal No. 46 of 2025 (Arising out of S.A. 44 of 2023 – DRT-Cuttack)] held that;

• To sum up, the post-amendment scenario inevitably requires a clear thirty day notice period being maintained between issuance of the sale notice under Rule 8(6) of the Rules of 2002 and the publication of the sale notice under Rule 9(1) thereof, as the right of redemption available to the borrower in terms of Rule 8(6) of the Rules of 2002, as pointed out in MATHEW VARGHESE, stands extinguished upon publication of the sale notice under Rule 9(1).”

• The e-auction sale notice dated 20.02.2023 published on 25.02.2023 fixing the sale date on 28.03.2023 is in clear violation of Rule 8(6) and 9(1) of the Rule as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bafna Motors (supra).

• E-auction sale notice dated 20.02.2023 was issued against the specific provision of law wherein the debt due was wrongly calculated with interest @ 14.40% which is against the judgement and order passed by learned DRT in O.A. proceeding. Debt was also determined by the DRT. How Authorised Officer can increase the debt amount? When he has increased the amount of debt without any lawful authority it means that he has exceeded his powers.

• Such misuse of powers is resulting in setting aside of auction sale. All the losses incurred by the Bank are due to the actions of the Authorised Officer. This Tribunal is not imposing any penalty upon the Authorised Officer, but left it to the wisdom of the competent authority of the Bank to take appropriate action in accordance with law and rules.

Excerpts of the Order;

Instant appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgement and order dated 22.11.2024 passed by learned DRT Cuttack in S.A. 44 of 2023 (Debendra Nath Das Vs. AO-cum-Chief Manager, Union Bank of India & Anr.) whereby learned DRT dismissed the securitization application filed by the appellant.

# 2. As per pleadings of the parties, facts of the matter are that a securitization application u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Act) was filed by the appellant challenging the E-auction sale notice dated 22.02.2023 conducted on 28.03.2023. The appellant is a guarantor in CC Loan account of Rs.90.00 lakh availed by M/s S. R. Retail Zone Pvt. Ltd. from the erstwhile Corporation Bank (now merged with Union Bank of India) by creating equitable mortgage of dwelling house. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA. Sale notice dated 20.02.2023 was issued indicating recovery amount of Rs.1,23,11,932.50. Possession notice was issued on 13.07.2012. Even thereto the property of the borrower was sold at Rs.15.00 lakh, property of co-borrower Nalinikanta Pattanaik was sold at Rs.30.00 lakh and release the property of another co-guarantor Sri Sarbeswar Samal (deposited by him) and 29.00 lakh was deposited by borrower. Bank has realized Rs.74.00 lakh by selling the mortgage property of borrow and to guarantors.

# 3. An O.A. was filed by the bank u/s 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for an amount of Rs.57,79,139.50 which was decided by the learned DRT on 19.02.2021 for a recovery certificate of Rs.34,09,139.50. The judgement and order passed by learned DRT in O.A. 237 of 2013 was before this Appellate Tribunal as Appeal Dy. No.172 of 2022 wherein pre-deposit was also made.

# 4. Borrower submitted OTS proposal to the bank which was approved by the bank on 13.10.2022 for an amount of Rs.30,31,388.50 with upfront money of Rs.5.36 lakh, out of which Rs.3.00 lakh was paid by the borrower as upfront money, but rest amount was not paid. OTS was not fructified. E-auction sale notice was issued on 20.02.2023 fixing the auction date on 28.03.2023 for a reserve price of Rs.86.95 lakhs. Sale notice was issued showing recovery amount of Rs.1,23,11,932.50.

# 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for appellant that sale notice dated 20.02.2023 is illegal. It is stated that outstanding amount in the loan account as determined in the O.A. proceeding by the DRT was Rs.34,09,139.50 only. OTS proposal was duly approved, but cancelled for some oblique reasons. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for setting aside the sale notice dated 20.02.2023 with consequential reliefs.

# 6. Reply was filed by the bank stating that O.A. 237 of 2013 was filed by the bank wherein recovery certificate for Rs.34,09,139.50 was issued on 19.02.2021 for realization. Feeling aggrieved by the judgement and order passed in O.A. proceeding, borrower filed an appeal before this Appellate Tribunal. OTS proposal was made by the borrower which was approved. Upfront amount of Rs.3.00 lakh was paid, but rest amount was not paid. Thereafter, another application dated 10.01.2023 forwarded to the bank with an account payee cheque of Rs.32,67,388.50 dated 18.01.2023. OTS proposal was cancelled. E-auction sale notice was issued in accordance with law. Appellant simply want to drag on the proceeding, which is not in the interest of the bank. Auction sale notice was issued showing recovery amount of Rs.1,23,11,932.50 as it was outstanding on 31.01.2023 which includes interest as well as legal expenses.

# 7. Learned DRT decided the securitization application formulating three issues which are as under :

• 1. whether the bank has issued e-auction sale notice during subsistence of OTS?

• 2. whether the bank has taken possession during subsistence of the OTS settlement?

• 3. whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs a claimed?

# 8. Learned DRT in issue no.1 recorded a finding that OTS proposal was cancelled. Thereafter, bank issued e-auction sale notice dated 20.02.2023. Accordingly, appellant’s contention that e-auction sale notice was issued during the subsistence of OTS proposal was not accepted by the learned DRT. It is further held by the learned DRT that there is no illegality committed by the District Magistrate in passing the order u/s 14 of the Act. Securitization action initiated by the bank was in accordance with law. Accordingly, learned DRT dismissed the securitization application.

# 9. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant preferred the appeal.

10. learned counsel for the appellant would submit that e-auction sale notice dated 20.02.2023 was published on 25.02.2023 and auction conducted on 28.03.2023. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is clear violation of Rule 8(6) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Rule).

# 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent bank would submit that bank issued e-auction sale notice in accordance with the law. Hon’ble Apex Court in CELIR LLP -vs- Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited & Others [(2024) 2 SCC 1] at Para 51 of the judgement has held as under :

• 51. The true purport and scope of the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act was looked into by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri. Sai Annadhatha Polymers & Anr. v. Canara Bank rep. by its Branch Manager, Mandanapalle reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 178. The court took the view that in accordance with the unamended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset was available till the sale or transfer of such secured asset.

• To sum up, the post-amendment scenario inevitably requires a clear thirty day notice period being maintained between issuance of the sale notice under Rule 8(6) of the Rules of 2002 and the publication of the sale notice under Rule 9(1) thereof, as the right of redemption available to the borrower in terms of Rule 8(6) of the Rules of 2002, as pointed out in MATHEW VARGHESE, stands extinguished upon publication of the sale notice under Rule 9(1).”

• [emphasis supplied]

# 12. Hon’ble Apex Court has held at Para 37 as under:

• 37. From the above provisions under Rule 8(6) it is clear that the authorised officer of the Bank shall serve on the borrower a notice of thirty days for sale of immovable property, and that if the sale of such secured assets is by way of public auction, the Bank/secured creditor, shall cause publication of such notice in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular, language having sufficient circulation in the locality by setting the out the terms of sale, mentioned in the said provision; and under sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, such sale of immovable of property under these Rules shall not take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (6), or notice of sale has been served to the borrower.

# 13. The e-auction sale notice dated 20.02.2023 published on 25.02.2023 fixing the sale date on 28.03.2023 is in clear violation of Rule 8(6) and 9(1) of the Rule as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bafna Motors (supra).

# 14. Another issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that e-auction sale notice dated 20.02.2023 shows the recovery amount as Rs.1,23,11,932.50 and reserve price at 86.95 lakh whereas property was sold at Rs.1,55,45,000/-. Learned counsel would submit that debt due has already been determined by learned DRT in O.A. proceeding which was Rs.34,09,139.50 and rate of interest was also awarded @ 10% simple pendente lite and future. It is further submitted that in the supplementary affidavit file by the bank today on 17.07.2025 wherein at page 6 rate of interest charged by the bank is 14.40%. It is submitted that respondent bank travelled beyond the scope of the judgement and order passed by the learned DRT in the O.A. proceeding when the debt has already been determined and rate of interest has also been awarded by the learned DRT which was not challenged by the bank. It means that bank has accepted the judgement and order passed by the learned DRT in the O.A. proceeding. Thereafter, rate of interest could not be increased by the bank on any ground whatsoever.

# 15. It is further submitted that sale notice itself was issued for a recovery amount at Rs.1,23,11,932.50 which is against the debt determined by the learned DRT. It is further submitted that bank has committed material illegality in issuing the e-auction sale notice.

# 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that bank is well within its jurisdiction and right to charge interest as per the contractual rate of interest. It is further submitted that sale notice was issued showing debt dues as was reflected in the statement accounts of the bank annexed at page 6 of the supplementary affidavit filed today on 17.07.2023.

# 17. It is a settled legal proposition that secured creditor can proceed with the proceeding u/s 19 of the Recovery of Debs & Bankruptcy Act,1993 as well as proceedings u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 simultaneously. Accordingly, O.A. was filed by the bank which was considered and decided by the learned DRT on merit. A recovery certificate was issued for Rs.34,09,139.50 and interest was also awarded pendente lite and future interest @ 10% simple. This judgement of learned DRT was not challenged by the bank, but it is challenged by the borrower. It means bank has accepted the findings of learned DRT as far as rate of interest and debt due are concerned. Accordingly, it is to be observed that debt is determined by the learned DRT in accordance with law in the year 2021.

# 18. In the e-auction sale notice issued on 20.02.2023, how the figure of Rs.1,23,11,932.50 calculated by the respondent bank as recovery amount? Answer of the same can be found out from the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent bank today, wherein at page 6 a statement is submitted with effect from 01.12.2020. The total amount of interest calculated as Rs.11,14,670.00. The statement is as under :

Rate of interest	14.40%
Total interest	Rs.11,14,670.00
As per account statement encl. URI reversal	Rs.76,19,787.00
Auction paper publication charges	Rs.9,440.00
Postage and photo copy charges	Rs.647.00
Total	Rs.87,44,544.00
Grant total	Rs.1,23,11,932.50

# 19. When the debt was already determined and rate of interest was also awarded by the learned DRT, it is apparent that concerned authorised officer of the bank has exceeded its power in calculating the debt due at 14.40% interest. It is settled legal proposition that more a power conferred upon the authorised officer, more are the duties imposed upon him. Ample powers under Securitization Act are given to the authorised officer, but there are also duties to be performed by him in exercising his powers. It cannot be expected from the authorised officer that he should exercise power under the Act without following the established principle of Act and Rules. Authorised officer does not have any unfettered power. If exercise of such power by Authorised Officer given under the Act exceeds its jurisdiction, it means that he is misusing his official power which require appropriate action to be taken by the competent authority.

# 20. E-auction sale notice dated 20.02.2023 was issued against the specific provision of law wherein the debt due was wrongly calculated with interest @ 14.40% which is against the judgement and order passed by learned DRT in O.A. proceeding. Debt was also determined by the DRT. How Authorised Officer can increase the debt amount? When he has increased the amount of debt without any lawful authority it means that he has exceeded his powers. Such misuse of powers is resulting in setting aside of auction sale. All the losses incurred by the Bank are due to the actions of the Authorised Officer. This Tribunal is not imposing any penalty upon the Authorised Officer, but left it to the wisdom of the competent authority of the Bank to take appropriate action in accordance with law and rules. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that E-auction sale notice is vitiated. It is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, e-auction conducted by the bank is also liable to be set aside. Appeal deserves to be allowed.

O R D E R

# 21. Appeal is allowed with costs. Impugned judgement and order dated 22.11.2024 passed by learned DRT is set aside. S.A. No.44 of 2023 is allowed to the extent that e-auction sale notice dated 20.02.2023 is quashed. E-auction conducted on 28.03.2023 is also set aside. Bank is hereby directed to refund the auction sale price to the auction purchaser with interest at the rate of 09% per annum simple with effect from the date of depositing the amount till the date of actual payment. Amount should be refunded within a period 30 days positively. If possession is handed over to the auction purchaser, the Auction Purchaser hand over the possession to the bank. Bank would be at liberty to take further appropriate steps to recover its dues in accordance with law.

# 22. Let a copy of this judgement be sent to the Chairman-cumManaging Director and Chief General Manager of the respondent Bank for information and necessary action.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the judgement/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of July, 2025.

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