The main legal point established in the judgment is that factual mistakes in the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act cannot be accepted as valid grounds to challenge the auction sale conducted by the bank, especially when the sale of the mortgaged properties had been concluded more than 10 years ago.

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

Petitioner, a dealer in Petroleum Products from M/s. Indian Oil Corporation and running an outlet in the name and style of M/s. S.R.P. Agencies, availed cash credit limit of Rs.30,000/- for the working capital and further availed some more financial assistance from Indian Overseas Bank, Salem, 1st respondent. He mortgaged, land as secured asset. For the default in payment, bank filed a suit in OS No.79 of 1991, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. An exparte preliminary decree was passed in favour of the bank on 16.03.1992. Thereafter, final decree was also passed.

2. In 1995 bank initiated execution proceedings. At that stage, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application to set aside the exparte decree, with a delay of 1789 days. Civil Court allowed the condonation petition and granted opportunity to the petitioner/defendant therein to file written statement. Petitioner did not file the written statement. Hence, on 05.08.2003, decree was passed in OS No.79 of 1991, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri.

3. On 26.04.2004, bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, followed by the possession notice dated 21.12.2006. Sale notice dated 05.11.2017 was published in two leading newspapers viz., Dinamalar and The Indian Express. In the first sale notice dated 01.03.2017 upset price was fixed at Rs.10.64 Lakhs, but there was no bidder. Second sale notice dated 05.11.2007 was issued and the upset price was reduced and fixed at Rs.8.28 Lakhs. Sale conducted has been confirmed and sale certificate dated 31.12.2007 and 07.01.2008, respectively, were issued to the purchasers of the property mentioned therein.

4. Encumbrance certificate dated 22.01.2008 shows the name of the owner of the property as K.Krishnan, purchaser of the mortgaged property from Indian Overseas Bank.

5. Petitioner has filed SA No.46 of 2008 in March 2008, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, to declare the auction sale held by Indian Overseas Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as invalid, to set aside the auction sale conducted by the bank on 10.12.2007 and to cancel the sale deed executed by the bank on 07.01.2008 and registered on 21.08.2008, in favour of the purchaser.

6. SA No. 46 of 2008 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, has been subsequently, transferred and renumbered as TSA No. 42 of 2008 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. Opposing the prayer sought for, bank has filed reply statement. Written submissions have been filed by both parties. Adverting to the rival contentions and the plea on limitation, the delay in filing an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, vide order dated 29.07.2013, dismissed TSA No.42 of 2008.

7. Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed an appeal in RA SA No. 96 of 2014 under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, contending inter alia that issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, cannot fall back on the preliminary decree issued in favour of the bank in O.S.No.79 of 1991 dated 16.03.1992.

8. Before the appellate forum, the appellant has further contended that the valuation of the property was Rs.30 Lakhs, but the bank has undervalued the same at Rs.8.28 Lakhs. Further contention has been made that on 24.01.2008, when the writ petitioner approached the bank, for deposit of Rs.8.28 Lakhs, the same was not accepted.

9. Perusal of the order made in RA SA No.96 of 2014 dated 19.04.2018, shows that in TSA No.42 of 2008, besides impleading the Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, Salem as the 1st respondent, one Mr. K.Krishnan, S/o. Kuppan, Dharmapuri, has been shown as 2nd respondent. He has purchased the mortgaged property. Mr. G.Perumal, S/o. Gopal, Dharmapuri Taluk and District has been shown as 3rd respondent. He is the subsequent purchaser, from Mr. K.Kri