The borrower's "trustee" argument invokes the secured creditor's duty under Rule 8(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, to safeguard the secured asset while in custody, taking "as much care of the property... as an owner of ordinary prudence would" during the enforcement process.[1000540330030][1000540330031] This duty prevents arbitrary or whimsical exercise of powers under the SARFAESI Act but focuses on preservation and protection until sale, not an absolute obligation to maximize sale price like a court auctioneer under CPC provisions.[1000540330025][1000540330026][1000540330030] The Act empowers the secured creditor to enforce security interest without court intervention, subject to statutory procedure, with borrower protections centered on redemption rights under Section 13(8) rather than post-notice price optimization.[1000540330023][1000540330025][1000540330027]

A single bid (or sole valid bid) at or near reserve price does not inherently breach this duty if the bank complies with mandatory steps: obtaining valuation from an approved valuer, fixing reserve price in consultation with the secured creditor, publishing public notice in two newspapers (one vernacular) detailing property, debt, reserve, terms, and inviting tenders/auction, and serving 30 days' individual notice to the borrower.[1000540330022] (!) (!) (!) [1000540330027][1000540330028][1000540330049] Here, the bank published notices on 23.08.2007 in leading papers, fixed reserve at Rs. 1.25 crore based on valuation, received two tenders (one withdrew post-court order), accepted the highest valid bid of Rs. 1.27 crore (above reserve), and confirmed after partial deposit—steps deemed procedurally initiated correctly until vitiated by postponement without fresh notice.[1000540330005][1000540330007][1000540330020][1000540330049][1000540330050]

The judgment invalidated the sale primarily for failing to re-notify after court-ordered postponement beyond 30 days (requiring fresh proclamation akin to allied rules), denying borrower's Section 13(8) redemption opportunity—not inadequate marketing or low price.[1000540330027][1000540330047][1000540330048][1000540330049][1000540330050] Even recognizing later higher offers (Rs. 2.03 crore), the Court confirmed the original sale with equitable adjustment (additional Rs. 76 lakh from purchaser), prioritizing stabilized rights post-procedure over endless re-bidding.[1000540330057][1000540330058] (!) (!) [1000540330060] Borrower cannot leverage "best price" to unwind compliant process; challenge lies in DRT under SARFAESI, not writ jurisdiction absent fundamental irregularity.[1000540330015][1000540330039]

To rebut: Demand proof of undervaluation (e.g., independent valuation > reserve) or non-compliance (e.g., no publication/notice); single bid reflects market response post-advertisement, not negligence.[1000540330028][1000540330029] Emphasize constitutional property protection via notice/redemption, not ex post price guarantees.[1000540330025][1000540330026]