Authorised Officer Vs Dr. Premchander (DRAT Chennai)
DRAT Chennai held that since sale not held in the manner required under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act] hence the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, appellant is directed to refund the sale consideration with 6% interest.
Facts- This appeal is filed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, challenging the order dated 31.08.2017 passed by DRT – 1, Chennai. The first respondent before the DRT, filed this appeal. 1st respondent, as an applicant, challenged the sale held on 23.12.2013, pursuant to the Sale Notice dated 18.11.2013. The Presiding officer, on considering the materials produced before him and submissions made, allowed the application.
Conclusion- Held that the appellant failed to take the sale notice to the first respondent to his Madurai Address where he was residing at the time of the sale. When previous notices had been taken to that address, sending the impugned sale notice to the Chennai address, where only the tenant resides, shows that there is no proper service or non service of sale notice as required under Rule 8(6) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. As already decided, with regard to affixture of notice, there is no proof even in the appellate forum. There is gross violation in receiving the balance sale consideration from the other bidder. The valuation of the undivided share of the land is not considered while valuing the secured asset and fixing the upset price. All these violations are gross violations, which cut at the root of the conduct of the sale. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the view that the sale was not held in the manner required under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.
