Court upholds auction sales, extinguishes borrower's redemption right, rejects irregularities, emphasizes SARFAESI Act compliance

The Court allowed the Writ Petitions, setting aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. It held that the auction sales conducted were legally valid, the sale certificates issued to auction purchasers were valid, and the Borrower's right of redemption was extinguished. Allegations of procedural irregularities were rejected, emphasizing the protection of bona fide auction purchasers and compliance with the SARFAESI Act and Rules.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the auction sale conducted on 13.08.2004.
2. Right of Redemption of the Borrower.
3. Compliance with SARFAESI Act and Rules.
4. Validity of the sale certificates issued to the auction purchasers.
5. Procedural irregularities alleged by the Borrower.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Auction Sale Conducted on 13.08.2004:
The Petitioners argued that the auction sale conducted on 13.08.2004 was valid as the status quo order was not in force on that date. The Court found that the sale conducted on 13.08.2004 was valid since the status quo order was set aside by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) on 12.08.2004, and no specific direction was obtained from the Court to halt the sale. The Court concluded that the sale conducted by the Bank on 13.08.2004 was legally valid.

2. Right of Redemption of the Borrower:
The Borrower contended that they retained the right of redemption, which should have been considered. However, the Court noted that the Borrower had not exercised the right of redemption under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act after the issuance of the sale notice dated 09.07.2004. The Court held that the Borrower lost the right of redemption due to their failure to settle the dues and redeem the mortgaged properties.

3. Compliance with SARFAESI Act and Rules:
The Borrower alleged non-compliance with the SARFAESI Act and Rules, including non-publication of possession notice in vernacular language and failure to obtain valuation from an approved valuer. The Court found that the Bank had complied with the mandatory requirements under the SARFAESI Act and Rules, including publication of possession notices in newspapers and obtaining valuation from an approved valuer. The Court rejected the Borrower's allegations of procedural irregularities.

4. Validity of the Sale Certificates Issued to the Auction Purchasers:
The Petitioners argued that the sale certificates issued to them were valid and made them absolute owners of the properties. The Court held that the sale certificates issued after the confirmation of sale were legally valid. The Court emphasized that the rights of bona fide auction purchasers for valuable consideration should be protected, and the Borrower's right of redemption was extinguished after the confirmation of sale.

5. Procedural Irregularities Alleged by the Borrower:
The Borrower claimed that the auction sale was conducted without proper notice and in violation of the status quo order. The Court found that the status quo order was not in force on the date of the auction sale, and the Borrower had failed to challenge the sale notice within the stipulated time. The Court concluded that there were no procedural irregularities in conducting the auction sale and issuing the sale certificates.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the Writ Petitions, setting aside the order dated 22.08.2014 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in RA (SA) No.132 of 2012. The Court held that the auction sales conducted on 13.08.2004 and 09.04.2009 were legally valid, and the sale certificates issued to the auction purchasers were valid. The Borrower's right of redemption was extinguished, and the allegations of procedural irregularities were rejected. The Court emphasized the protection of bona fide auction purchasers and the compliance with the SARFAESI Act and Rules.

---