Mandatory auction compliance under security enforcement rules can invalidate a secured asset sale and justify writ review.

Mandatory valuation, reserve price fixation, newspaper publication, and timely payment of the balance consideration are treated as essential steps for a valid sale of secured property under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The text states that failure to show a fresh valuation before resale, non-compliance with the notice period, and defective vernacular publication were treated as rendering the auction sale invalid. It also notes that writ jurisdiction may be invoked where the statutory appeal remedy is rendered ineffective on the facts, and that a refusal to examine the legality of the sale procedure can make the Single Judge's approach unsustainable. The sale was directed to be re-auctioned in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sale of the secured asset was in conformity with Rule 8 and Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; (ii) whether the writ petition was maintainable without exhausting the appeal remedy under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; (iii) whether the order of the learned Single Judge suffered from error in refusing interference.

Issue (i): Whether the sale of the secured asset was in conformity with Rule 8 and Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

Analysis: The sale process was examined against the mandatory requirements of Rule 8(5) and Rule 8(6), which require valuation through an approved valuer, fixation of reserve price, and public notice in two leading newspapers including one vernacular newspaper with sufficient circulation. The Court found that no fresh valuation was shown before resale, the notice period was not effectively complied with, and the vernacular publication in Marathi did not satisfy the requirement for the locality concerned. The Court also found no satisfactory material showing timely and proper payment of the balance sale consideration under Rule 9.

Conclusion: The sale was held to be bad in law and not in conformity with Rule 8 and Rule 9.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable without exhausting the appeal remedy under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Court held that though Section 18 provides an appellate remedy, the requirement of deposit and the facts of the case made that remedy ineffective in the circumstances. Since the challenge concerned admitted facts and the legality of the sale procedure, and not disputed factual questions, the writ petition was treated as maintainable. The earlier writ petition did not bar consideration of the later challenge on maintainability.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be maintainable.

Issue (iii): Whether the order of the learned Single Judge suffered from error in refusing interference.

Analysis: The Court found that the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition without examining the substantive legality of the sale process and without dealing with the statutory requirements governing the auction. That approach was held to be erroneous in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The order of the learned Single Judge was held to be unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the auction sale was set aside, and the property was directed to be re-auctioned in accordance with law after following the mandatory procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with the mandatory pre-sale notice, valuation, and publication requirements under the security interest enforcement rules is essential to a valid sale of secured property, and writ jurisdiction may be invoked where the statutory appellate remedy is rendered ineffective in the facts of the case.

---