Bank has no right to extend the time while publishing the sale notice under SARFAESI Act | If liability of borrower as well as the mortgager or the guarantor is joint, collateral and several, then they are required to be served each and every notice issued under the SARFAESI Act – State Bank of India Vs. Kush Kumar Verma and Anr. – DRAT Allahabad
April 3, 2024
Hon’ble DRAT Allahabad held that: (i) As such the service of individual notice to the borrower by giving 30 days clear time for effecting any sale of immovable property is a statutory mandate. In the present case, no notice has been given to the guarantor, whereas the service of notice under Rule 8(6) of the Rules 2002 is mandatory. If the liability of the borrower as well as the mortgager or the guarantor is joint, collateral and several, then they are required to be served each and every notice issued under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder. (ii) With regard to the violation of Rule 9(3) of the Rules, 2002, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no finding given by the Tribunal below for the same, therefore, the same needs no consideration, is incorrect, as the Tribunal below in this regard, has recorded the finding that the Bank has no right to generalize the interpretation of word “immediate” and published sale notice with the time of 48 hours for payment required to be deposited in compliance of the said Rule, which is correct, as the Bank has no right to extend the time while publishing the sale notice against the Act and Rules made thereunder. (iii) In this regard, the Hon’ble High Courts as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court has already interpreted the word “immediate”. The word “immediate” means on the same day of the auction or by the next day but not later-on.
