Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rajesh Kumar, Gaurav Kumar Singh, Anant Gautam, (For M/s Mitter & Mitter Co.), Advs.

The legal document clarifies that under the relevant statutes and rules governing the enforcement of security interests, there is no statutory requirement for a secured creditor to issue a separate individual notice to the borrower prior to deciding on the mode of sale of the secured asset. The key mandatory notice is a 30-day notice of intention to sell, which must be served to the borrower, and this notice can be issued simultaneously with a public notice of sale, provided there is a clear 30-day gap before the sale date. The purpose of these notices is to inform the borrower of the impending sale and the mode of sale, such as inviting tenders or conducting a public auction, so that the borrower and potential bidders are adequately informed. It is also emphasized that the sale of immovable secured assets must be conducted in accordance with prescribed procedures, including proper notices and preservation measures, to ensure the sale is valid and legally compliant. The high court's view that a separate individual notice is mandatory prior to deciding the mode of sale has been overturned, affirming that the existing legal framework permits issuing notices concurrently and does not mandate a separate individual notice apart from the statutory 30-day notice of sale.