IMPORTANT POINT
Legal infirmity in auction sale goes to root of matter.

Chitra Venkataraman, J.—Writ Petition Nos.32610 and 32611 of 2012 and 24241 to 24244 of 2012 are filed by the United Bank of India and the purchasers of the guarantor’s properl in I.A.Nos.1026 and 1027 of 2011 in R.A.(S.A.)Nos.86 and 87 of 2010 dated 31.8.2012.ty respectively in the auction conducted by the Authorised Officer of the Bank against the orders of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in R.A.(SA) Nos.86 and 87 of 2010 dated 31.8.2012 and the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribuna

2. The first respondent in the above Writ Petitions is Airtech Projects Engineers Pvt. Ltd, the borrower, who defaulted in the payment of its dues to the bank. Since the issue and facts are common, the status of the parties as in W.P.No.31610 of 2012, filed by the Bank, is maintained herein in this order.

3. The first respondent herein had the cash credit facility for Rs.85.00 lakhs from the bank. One of its Directors by name Vasantha Devi (not a party in the Writ Petitions) offered her immovable property of an extent of 2.04 Grounds (4900 sq.ft at 32, McNichols Road, Chetpet, Chennai-31 for the above-said credit facility as security and guaranteed the repayment of the dues. Admittedly, the first respondent did not repay its due; thus its account became NPA. This led to the petitioner issuing a demand notice on 01.08.2008, calling upon the first respondent and its Directors to repay the dues of Rs.88,52,741/- within a period of 60 days of receipt of the notice. On issuing the notice, the petitioner also arranged for valuation of the property. After due notice to the guarantor and in her presence, on 14.10.2008, the property given as security was valued at the market price of Rs.2,68,20,000/- by one M/s.United Shakthi Associates. The petitioner served notice of possession and sale notice dated 12.11.2008 on the borrower. The petitioner took possession of the secured asset on 12.11.2008 and had the valuation done once again by the very same valuer who did the valuation on 14.10.2008. Although the market value of the secured asset was arrived at, the valuer fixed the market value at Rs.2,68,20,000/- and the distress sale value at Rs.2,14,56,000/-. The service was accepted by the Authorised Officer on the upset price at Rs.2,15,00,000/-. It is stated that a combined possession cum auction notice dated 12.11.2008 was issued through publication on 17.11.2008 fixing the date of sale as 04.01.2009 at 12.00 noon. Since this happened to be a Sunday, through a corrigendum affixed on the notice board of the Bank, the same was adjourned to 05.01.2009.

4. The first respondent challenged the notice dated 12.11.2008 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal III, Chennai in S.A.No.136 of 2008 questioning the date of sale originally fixed for 04.01.2009, that it being a Sunday, the sale could not go on. According to the petitioner, the corrigendum issued postponing the sale to 05.01.2009 was not brought to the notice of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. By order dated 29.12.2008, the Debt Recovery Tribunal set aside the possession-cum- auction notice dated 12.11.2008. It however permitted the Bank to take action afresh according to law. The petitioner challenged this in C.R.P.No.501 of 2009 before this Court, contending that the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal was in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same having being passed without hearing the petitioner. The first respondent did not respond to the notice in the Civil Revision Petition. By order dated 21.4.2009, this Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and remanded the case back to the Debts Recovery Tribunal No.II, Chennai, to decide the case on merits and in accordance with law, after notice of hearing to the parties.

5. However, in the meantime, the petitioner bank issued another possession cum - sale notice on 18.3.2009 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, fixing the auction sale on 24.4.2009. The creditor Bank was stated to have received two offers