RAJESH SIVASANKARA PILLAI Vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ appeal is filed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.14992 of 2019 dated 20th June, 2019, by which the writ court held that while the banks and financial Institutions will have to follow Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in its letter and spirit, for sale of a secured asset/s at the "the first instance", when it comes to such sale on a subsequent instance, on account of the first attempt failing, then the provisions of Rule 8(6) read with the proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Rules would alone apply; and axiomatically, the requirement for the Bank in having to wait for 30 days after the publication of the public notice under Rule 8(6) is not attracted for such sale.

(2.) Short facts of the case are as follows:- Appellants have availed four loans to the tune of Rs.12,47,00,000/- against 6 parcels of immovable property having a total extent of 968.91 cents in Kottarakara town during the years 2012 to 2015 from Federal Bank, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.1, and offered certain properties as secured assets. Since the appellants committed default, Bank initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act , 2002 and took possession of the property on 26.10.2016. They finally issued a sale notice dated 28.02.2019 for 3 parcels of immovable properties to the petitioners and fixed the sale on 21.03.2019. They caused public notice in the newspapers only on 01.03.2019, which according to the appellants is only with 19 clear days notice. According to the appellants, Rule 9(1) of the Rules prescribe any sale of immovable property before the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the pu blic notice. The sale took place on 21.03.2019, ten days before the expiry of the mandatory notice period, and Travancore Devaswom Board, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Pathanamthitta, respondent No.3, purchased the immovable properties for a price of Rs.8,20,06,000/-. Being aggrieved, appellants have filed W.P.(C) No.14992 of 2019, and the same was dismissed by the writ court.

(3.) Mr.Titus Mani Vettom, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the judgment of the writ court dated 20.06.2019 in W.P.(C) No.14992 of 2019 is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mathew Varghese v. M.Amritha Kumar [(2014) 5 SCC 610]. He referred to paragraph 31 of the abovesaid decision, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: