The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Rule 9(4) and 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, highlighting the requirement for the purchaser to pay the balance amount within a specified period and the consequences of default in payment, as well as the revival of the mortgagor's right of redemption if the sale does not take place or is set aside.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in order, dated 31.05.2023 made in T.S.A.No.35 of 2023 (Old S.A.No.145 of 2022) on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, the first respondent herein and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to return the title deeds by closing the loan account.)

D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

1. The brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the writ petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacturing, exporting and supplying massive assemblage of Industrial Separators and Magnetic Equipment. For their business purpose, they had availed Cash Credit facility to a tune of Rs.1,82,24,183/-, Common COVID - 19 Emergency Credit Line facility to a tune of Rs.10,25,369/- and Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line to a tune of Rs.36,96,715/-, in all totaling to Rs.2,30,45,715/-. In view of default in repayment, the account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) with effect from 30.09.2021.

2. A notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act'), was issued on 08.10.2021 and the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 11.01.2022. Thereafter, a sale notice was issued under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 on 18.02.2022 fixing auction on 28.03.2022. The auction was to bring for sale the mortgaged property by fixing a reserve price of Rs.2.58 crores. The respondent Nos.3 and 4, in the Writ Petition, jointly participated in the bid and were the successful bidders for a sum of Rs.3,03,00,000/-. Their highest bid was accepted and they were directed to pay 25% amount on or before 29.03.2022. They were also advised to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,27,25,000/- within a period of 15 days i.e., on or before 12.04.2022. As per the directive of the second respondent bank, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 paid the 25% of the amount on 29.03.2022.

3. It is at this stage, the writ petitioners filed S.A.No.145 of 2022 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal - I, Chennai and on 31.03.2022, the following interim order was passed :-

" Hence the respondent bank is directed to maintain status quo on condition that the applicant remitting a sum of Rs.1.00 Crore today and on further condition that the applicant remitting a further sum of Rs.85.00 Lakhs on or before 04.04.2022. It is made clear that if any of these conditions are not complied with by the applicant, the respondent is free to proceed further in accordance with law. Applicant to implead auction purchaser as a party to the proceedings. Ld. Counsel for the bank undertakes to file a memo furnishing details of the auction purchaser within a week's time after serving a copy to the applicant."

4. However, the amounts were not paid exactly as per the conditional order. The writ petitioners were directed to remit a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on the same day of the order i.e., on 31.03.2022 and were directed to pay another sum of Rs.85,00,000/- on or before 04.04.2022. The writ petitioners paid a sum of Rs.89,00,000/- on the same day of the order i.e., on 31.03.2022 and thus, there was a deficit of Rs.11,00,000/-. On 01.04.2022, they paid a sum of Rs.15,73,000/-. On 02.04.2022, they paid a sum of Rs.20,77,500/-. On 05.04.2022, the petitioners made another deposit of Rs.70,08,000/-. Thus, even though there was one day delay, the petitioners had even paid the sums over and above the conditional order of the Tribunal and as a matter of fact, the entire outstanding stood paid as on 05.04.2022. It is in this background, when the appeal filed by the writ petitioners before the Tribunal came up for further hearing, the Tribunal recorded the said fact and passed the following order :-

" ….

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits th