Provision of Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is mandatory in nature – Canara Bank Vs. Rusni Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. – DRAT Kolkata
Consent of the borrower was not sought at the time of granting extension of time by the Authorised Officer to the auction purchaser for depositing balance 75% of the bid amount. Provision of Rule 9(4) of the Rules is mandatory in nature. Non-compliance of the mandatory provision nullifies the whole exercise.
On the basis of the discussion made above I am of the considered view that non-compliance of the provision of Rule 9(4) of the Rules has vitiated the auction sale as well as sale notice. Learned DRT has rightly arrived at a conclusion. Accordingly, both the appeals lack merits and deserve to be dismissed.
