Although any minor irregularity or any typographical error may be clarified by way of corrigendum, but the publication of sale notice in the newspaper is a primary requirement of Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – Syndicate Bank Vs. M/s Anand Industries – DRAT Allahabad Bench

DRAT held that there is no dispute on the point that the earlier sale notice dated 30.06.2016 fixing the date of auction on 30.07.2016 was not acted upon and the Bank has issued fresh sale notice dated 15.07.2016 and the same was sent to the borrowers and affixed on the premises. Thus, the earlier sale notice dated 30.06.2016 has become redundant. As such the publication made in the newspaper with regard to sale notice dated 30.06.2016 remained of no consequence. Although any minor irregularity or any typographical error may be clarified by way of corrigendum, but the publication of sale notice in the newspaper is a primary requirement of Rule 8(6) of the Rules, 2002. Thus, the Bank was required to publish the sale notice dated 15.07.2016 in the newspaper instead of publishing a corrigendum only to the effect that for the sale notice published in the newspaper on 30.06.2016, the date of auction be read as “26.08.2016”. This corrigendum does not clarify, as to what were the conditions of the sale notice and the other details thereof. The public at large cannot gather any inference from such corrigendum in order to participate in the bid. Therefore, this corrigendum was not sufficient to take place of the publication of sale notice dated 15.07.2016 in the newspaper as required under Rule 8(6) of the Rules, 2002.

Although any minor irregularity or any typographical error may be clarified by way of corrigendum, but the publication of sale notice in the newspaper is a primary requirement of Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – Syndicate Bank Vs. M/s Anand Industries – DRAT Allahabad Bench Read Post »