The Supreme Court, in Canara Bank vs. M. Amarender Reddy, has held that it is permissible to simultaneously issue notice to the borrower about the intention to sell the secured assets and also to issue a public notice for sale of such secured asset by inviting tenders from the public or by holding public auction.
The high court, in the instant case, had observed that after a notice regarding intention to sell the secured asset under sub-rule 6 of Rule 8 is given by the authorised officer to the borrower, only on expiry of 30 days therefrom can the secured creditor take a decision about the mode of sale referred to in sub-rule 5 of Rule 8 the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, after giving notice to the borrower and then issue a public notice after expiry of further 30 days.
By this interpretation, the high court has virtually re-written the provisions and inevitably extended the time frame of 30 days specified in sub-rule 6 of Rule 8, said the three-judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra observing that the high court committed a manifest error.
“There is no need to wait for the expiry of 30 days from issuance of notice of intention to sell the secured asset given to the borrower, for publication of a public notice for sale of such asset. Nor is there any requirement to give a separate individual notice prior to deciding on the mode of sale of the secured asset,” the bench said.
It said the only restriction placed on the secured creditor is to serve a notice of 30 days on the borrower intimating him about its intention to sell the immovable secured asset and the mode and date fixed for sale; and also to issue a public notice in two leading newspapers, if the sale of such secured asset is effected either by inviting tenders or by holding public auction, notifying the date of sale after 30 clear days from such notice.
The high court, in the instant case, had observed that after a notice regarding intention to sell the secured asset under sub-rule 6 of Rule 8 is given by the authorised officer to the borrower, only on expiry of 30 days therefrom can the secured creditor take a decision about the mode of sale referred to in sub-rule 5 of Rule 8 the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, after giving notice to the borrower and then issue a public notice after expiry of further 30 days.
By this interpretation, the high court has virtually re-written the provisions and inevitably extended the time frame of 30 days specified in sub-rule 6 of Rule 8, said the three-judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra observing that the high court committed a manifest error.
“There is no need to wait for the expiry of 30 days from issuance of notice of intention to sell the secured asset given to the borrower, for publication of a public notice for sale of such asset. Nor is there any requirement to give a separate individual notice prior to deciding on the mode of sale of the secured asset,” the bench said.
It said the only restriction placed on the secured creditor is to serve a notice of 30 days on the borrower intimating him about its intention to sell the immovable secured asset and the mode and date fixed for sale; and also to issue a public notice in two leading newspapers, if the sale of such secured asset is effected either by inviting tenders or by holding public auction, notifying the date of sale after 30 clear days from such notice.
Comments
Post a Comment