ORDER :

P.Naveen Rao, J.

These two writ petitions are filed challenging the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) dated 10.07.2018 passed in S.A.No.32 of 2017.

2. Briefly noted, to the extent relevant, the facts are as under:

The 1st respondent borrowed money from the State Bank of India who is the petitioner in W.P.No.28947 of 2018. Holding that the borrower defaulted in repayment of loan, the Bank declared the said loan account as Non-Performing Asset and has taken recourse to the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’). At the time of obtaining loan, the borrower mortgaged certain properties as security. Since the amount due was not repaid by the borrower, the Bank has issued notice dated 23.09.2016 under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules (for brevity ‘the Rules’) informing the borrower that the secured asset would be sold to recover the amounts due, if the amount due is not repaid by him. On 23.10.2016 a notice under Rule 9(1) of the Rules was issued proposing to conduct sale of the secured asset on 30.11.2016. However, the sale was not successful. A second notice was issued on 23.12.2016 fixing the date of auction as 18.01.2017. Second time also the Bank was unsuccessful in disposing of the property. A third sale notice was issued on 12.02.2017 proposing to conduct sale on 28.02.2017. This time, sale was successful and petitioner in W.P.No.28320 of 2018 stood as auction purchaser for an amount of Rs. 3,81,00,000/- and on 22.03.2017 sale certificate was issued.

2.1. The borrower filed W.P.No.1978 of 2016 praying to set aside the possession notice dated 06.01.2016 and to set aside any other proceedings of the respondent-Bank. This Court by order dated 25.01.2016 granted stay of all further proceedings subject to the condition of petitioner depositing an amount of Rs. 2.50 Crores in two installments; the first installment of Rs.1.25 Crores to be paid within a period of six weeks from that date and second instalment of Rs.1.25 Crores to be paid within further period of six weeks thereafter. It appears, said condition was not complied with by the borrower and later, the writ petition was withdrawn and the borrower went before the Tribunal.

2.2. The borrower filed S.A.No.246 of 2016 which was re-numbered as S.A.No.32 of 2017, challenging the possession notice. In the said S.A., borrower filed I.A.No.300 of 2017 praying to stay all further proceedings including taking physical possession, issuance of sale certificate in respect of sale of petition schedule property. On 14.03.2017 the Tribunal passed a conditional order staying further proceedings including taking physical possession and issuance of sale certificate in favour of highest bidder in the auction sale of petition schedule property conducted on 28.02.2017, subject to borrower depositing 30% of the total outstanding dues in two equal installments; the first installment of 15% to be deposited within one week from the date of the order and the second installment of 15% of amount within two weeks thereafter. It appears, the borrower has not complied with the said condition and no amount was deposited. Therefore, the interim order granted by the Tribunal was inoperative.

2.3. In the said S.A., borrower filed application to amend the prayer sought in the S.A., and by way of an amendment the borrower challenged the legality and validity of the sale certificate.

3. The Tribunal formulated two points for consideration :

“1. Whether the applicant made out any valid ground for quashing the possession notice dated 06.01.2016 ?

2. Whether the applicant made out any valid ground for quashing the auction held on 28.02.2017 ? ”

4. On the first point, the Tribunal held in favour of the Bank holding that there was no procedura