The court reinforced that compliance with statutory notice requirements and fair valuation is essential in property auctions under the SARFAESI Act to protect borrower rights.

ORDER

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"i. The auction conducted on 16th & 17th April, 2018 in pursuance of auction notice dated 09.02.2018 (Annex. 5) and further the illegal extension dated 17.03.2018 (Annex. 6) (published in newspaper on18.03.2018) may kindly be declared illegal and may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. The auction notice dated 09.02.2018 (Annex. 5) may kindly be declared to be redundant and the General information dated 17.03.2018 (Annex. 6) (published in newspaper dated 18.03.2018) regarding deferring the date of auction may kindly be declared illegal and may kindly be quashed & set-aside.

3. The documents regarding confirmation of sale, if any, Sale Certificates and registering of same, if any, may kindly be called from the respondents and may kindly be declared illegal and may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

4. The respondent no.l may kindly be directed to proceed with the proposal given by the petitioner companies vide communication dated 08.05.2018 (Annex. 14) and implement the same."

2. At the outset, this Court takes note of the fact that at the instance of the petitioners, an earlier writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.788/2016 was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court on 15.03.2018. The said order dated 15.03.2018 reads as under:

"The present writ petition comes up for orders on second stay application moved by the petitioner -firms.

Vide Order dated 06.07.2017, the liberty was granted to the petitioner - firms to deposit an amount of Rs. 8.30 crores with the respondent - bank for which, the petitioner - firms were granted time upto 31.07.2017. The said amount was not deposited as directed. Thereafter, the petitioner - firms and the respondent - bank agreed on an amount of Rs. 9.05 crores as per their Letter dated 22.01.2018, which was required to be deposited by the petitioner - firms by 25.01.2018. The said letter was received by the petitioner - firms on 24.01.2018. Since only one day time was given to deposit the heavy amount, the petitioner - firms could not do so. Accordingly, the present second stay application has been moved seeking extension of time to permit the petitioner -firms to deposit the said amount.

Learned counsel for the respondents, however, has no objection to the extension of time in case, the petitioner - firms pay enhanced amount of Rs. 9.50 crores as one time amount on or before 09.04.2018.

In view of the above, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ petition with the following directions :-

A. The notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 05.01.2016 shall stand quashed in case, the petitioner - firms deposit Rs. 9.50 crores with the respondent - bank on or before 09.04.2018.

B. In case, the said amount is not deposited within stipulated period, the present writ petition shall deem to have been dismissed and the respondent - Bank shall be at liberty to proceed further against the petitioner - firms under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

The present writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. "

However, the petitioners failed to abide by the aforementioned order of this Hon'ble Court and also failed to take the benefit of the same.

3. Today the learned counsel for the petitioners raises three issues:

Firstly, that the mandatory notice under the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the Rules made thereunder require that no sale of immovable property shall take place before expiry of 30 days, and therefore, the auction could not have place before 30 days from 09.04.2018;

Secondly, the auction has taken place, while prescribing the rates below the DLC rates prevailing in the area; and

Thirdly, as an alternate remedy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the precedent

law laid down