SARFAESI sale compliance under Rule 9 requires written consent for extending payment time; unilateral extension can vitiate the sale.

Availability of a statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act does not automatically bar a writ petition under Article 226; exclusion depends on established facts showing waiver or deliberate delay, and that was not proved here. Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 requires strict compliance in sales of secured immovable property, and extension of time for payment of the balance price must be made in accordance with the rule with the required written consent. A unilateral extension by the secured creditor without the owner's consent was treated as non-compliant and rendered the sale vulnerable to being set aside as void.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; (ii) whether the sale of the secured asset was vitiated because the balance purchase price was permitted to be paid beyond time without the owner's consent under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: The availability of a remedy under Section 17 does not, by itself, exclude the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A party may be denied discretionary relief where it has consciously allowed the statutory period to expire after acquiring knowledge of the impugned measure, but such waiver must be established on the facts. On the material before the Court, the respondents did not show that the petitioner had knowledge of the challenged extension of time for the requisite period before the writ was filed.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and was not defeated by the alternative statutory remedy.

Issue (ii): whether the sale of the secured asset was vitiated because the balance purchase price was permitted to be paid beyond time without the owner's consent under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

Analysis: Rule 9 requires strict compliance in the conduct of a sale of immovable property under the SARFAESI regime. The time for payment of the balance purchase price may be extended only in accordance with the rule and by mutual assent in writing of the concerned parties. The Court applied the principles stated in the Supreme Court decisions relied upon and held that unilateral extension of time by the secured creditor, without the petitioner's consent, did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Rule 9.

Conclusion: The sale was vitiated and was liable to be treated as null and void.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, the impugned sale was set aside, and the secured creditor was left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a sale of secured immovable property under the SARFAESI framework, extension of time for payment of the balance consideration must conform to Rule 9 and cannot be effected unilaterally without the required written consent of the concerned parties; absence of such compliance vitiates the sale.

---