SARFAESI sale procedures can be waived, and writ jurisdiction should not bypass the statutory remedy in recovery disputes.

Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was treated as mandatory, but the Court held that its requirements existed for the benefit of the borrower and secured creditor and could be waived. The borrower's written consent to delayed payment and issuance of the sale certificate was treated as a valid written agreement under Rule 9(4), and the auction purchaser's payment on the agreed date substantially complied with the statutory scheme. The sale and sale certificate were therefore upheld. The Court also reiterated that Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked without exhausting the efficacious statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, and the High Court's interference was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sale of the secured asset and issuance of the sale certificate were invalid for non-compliance with Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, including the time for sale, deposit of 25% of the sale price, and payment of the balance consideration. (ii) Whether the borrower could invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the efficacious statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the sale of the secured asset and issuance of the sale certificate were invalid for non-compliance with Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, including the time for sale, deposit of 25% of the sale price, and payment of the balance consideration.

Analysis: Rule 9(1) and Rule 9(3) were treated as mandatory, but the Court held that these requirements were for the benefit of the borrower and the secured creditor and could be waived. The borrower's written letter consenting to acceptance of the delayed balance payment and issuance of the sale certificate was treated as a written agreement within Rule 9(4) and as a waiver of objections to the timing and manner of the sale. The auction purchaser's payment of the balance price on the date accepted in that writing substantially satisfied the statutory requirement, and the sale certificate could not be quashed on the alleged procedural breach.

Conclusion: The sale and sale certificate were valid, and the challenge based on Rule 9 failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the borrower could invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the efficacious statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Court reiterated that although the rule of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, a High Court should ordinarily insist on exhaustion of an efficacious statutory remedy, especially in matters involving recovery by banks and financial institutions. On the facts, the borrower had not availed the remedy under Section 17 and had approached the High Court after long delay despite having waived objections to the sale process. The invocation of writ jurisdiction was therefore unjustified.

Conclusion: The writ petitions ought not to have been entertained under Article 226, and the interference by the High Court was unwarranted.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were unsustainable, the writ petitions were dismissed, and the validity of the auction sale and sale certificate stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Mandatory sale-procedure requirements under SARFAESI rules may be waived by the parties for whose benefit they exist, and writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to bypass an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 17.

---