JUDGMENT :

R.B. DEO, J.

Petitioners are assailing the judgment dated 25-7-2008 in S.A. 13/2008 rendered by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur (DRT) whereby the auction sale conducted on 31-12-2007 is quashed and set aside and liberty is reserved with the petitioners to initiate further action in accordance with the statutory provisions, after deciding the objections raised by the borrower and obtaining fresh valuation report of the secured asset. Liberty is also reserved with the petitioner-bank to participate in the fresh auction after conveying such intention to the borrower.

2. The petitioners are further assailing the judgment dated 30-6-2010 in Appeal 174/2008 rendered by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (DRAT) whereby the appeal preferred against the judgment of the DRT is dismissed.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the broad facts are as set out infra :-

a) Petitioner 1 is a Multi State Co-operate Scheduled Bank duly registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 and petitioner 2 is the Branch Manager who is also the designated Authorised Officer (AO). In 2001, petitioner-bank sanctioned in favour of respondent 1-M/s. Sharad Automobiles, which is a partnership firm, secured cash credit loan limit of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lac), (hereinafter referred to as the “borrower”).

b) Another partnership firm M/s. Satish Motors executed registered deed of mortgage dated 22-3-2001 in favour of the bank as security for the secured cash credit loan limit sanctioned in favour of the borrower. The property mortgaged admeasures 24275.5 square feet in area and is assigned plot number 8/10, situated within the territorial limits of the Akola Municipal Corporation (secured asset).

c) In addition to the secured cash credit loan limit of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lac) supra the bank sanctioned to the borrower and its sister concerns four other separate and distinct loan limits.

d) The borrower committed default in repayment of the loan and the loan account was classified as non performing asset. As on April 2007, an amount of Rs.58,93,983/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lac Ninety Three Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Three) was outstanding against the financial assistance extended.

e) The AO issued demand notice dated 24-4-2007 to the borrower, the guarantors and mortgagors under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), which was duly served on 26-4-2007.

f) The notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act went unheeded and the bank took recourse to the measures provided under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The AO took symbolic possession of the secured asset on 27-6-2007.

g) The bank contends that after four months of the symbolic possession, the borrower submitted representation dated 22-10-2007, which the bank was not obligated to consider since the representation or objection is required to be submitted within the statutorily prescribed period of sixty days from the receipt of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. However, the bank did consider the said representation and the decision was conveyed to the borrower vide communication dated 05-11-2007.

h) The AO obtained the valuation of the secured asset from approved valuer Mr. Shailesh Agrawal who issued valuation certificate dated 27-10-2007 and the reserve price of the secured asset was fixed at Rs.1,25,45,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Five Lac Forty Five Thousand).

i) The AO published proclamation dated 28-11-2007 in two prominent daily newspapers informing the public at large that open and public auction of the secured asset is scheduled in the premises of the bank between 12-00 noon to 3-00 p.m. on 31-12-2007.

j) On or about 28-11-2007 the borrower preferred an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT which was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay and an application for grant of interim relief. The bank was served