Typographical error in e-auction notice and short payment delay did not invalidate the secured asset auction sale.

A typographical error in the door number in an e-auction notice did not invalidate the sale where the secured asset was otherwise identified with full particulars and no ambiguity, bidder confusion, or prejudice was shown. Delay of four days in paying the balance 75% of the bid amount under the pre-amended Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was also held not to vitiate the auction sale, because the payment period was not treated as an inflexible outer limit and the delay occurred amid pending proceedings without demonstrated prejudice. The auction sale was therefore upheld and title under the sale certificate restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a typographical error in the door number described in the e-auction notice vitiated the sale of the secured asset; (ii) Whether the delay of four days in depositing the balance 75% of the bid amount under Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 rendered the auction sale invalid.

Issue (i): Whether a typographical error in the door number described in the e-auction notice vitiated the sale of the secured asset.

Analysis: The secured asset was consistently described in the recovery and possession notices with full particulars, including boundaries, ward, block, survey and extent details. The only error was in the door number, which was shown as a non-existent number instead of the correct one. The borrowers did not establish that the mistake caused any ambiguity, confusion among bidders, or actual prejudice, nor did they show that the property fetched a lesser price because of the error.

Conclusion: The typographical error was inconsequential and did not invalidate the e-auction proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay of four days in depositing the balance 75% of the bid amount under Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 rendered the auction sale invalid.

Analysis: Under the pre-amended Rule 9(4), the period for payment of the balance sale consideration was not treated as an inflexible outer limit. The sale proceedings were in flux because the borrowers had obtained interim orders and sought further time, while the bank also requested the auction purchaser to wait. In those circumstances, the short delay in payment did not cause prejudice or frustrate the sale, and the sale certificate had already been issued before the borrowers complied with the conditions imposed on them.

Conclusion: The delay did not vitiate the auction sale and the sale was valid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the auction sale failed, the interference made by the High Court was unsustainable, and the auction purchaser's title under the sale certificate was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere typographical mistake in the description of a mortgaged property does not invalidate an auction sale absent shown prejudice, and the pre-amended Rule 9(4) payment period is not fatal where the delay occurs in the context of pending proceedings and no prejudice is caused.

---