A SARFAESI auction is invalid without fifteen clear days from the latest service, affixture, or publication of the sale notice.

The petitioner-borrower challenged the Bank’s third sale notice dated 16.06.2017 and the auction of his secured residential property on 05.07.2017. Earlier sale attempts had failed for want of bidders. The sale notice was published in two newspapers on 16.06.2017, but was dispatched to the borrower and guarantor only on 20.06.2017; the second respondent was the successful bidder, and a sale certificate and registered sale deed followed

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the borrower’s application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed his appeal

The borrower then filed this writ petition challenging the appellate order

Whether the Bank complied with the statutory notice period under Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, before conducting the auction

Whether the DRT and DRAT orders dismissing the borrower’s challenge could stand despite the alleged failure to provide the required notice period

Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 requires notice to the borrower before sale of an immovable secured asset; Rule 9(1) requires the prescribed interval before sale—thirty days for a first sale and, following an unsuccessful sale, not less than fifteen days for a subsequent sale

Applying *Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar*, (2014) 5 SCC 610, and *Canara Bank v. Amarender Reddy*, (2014) 4 SCC 735, the Court stated that these sale procedures must be strictly followed

It relied on *M. Rajendran v. KPK Oils and Proteins India Private Limited*, (2026) 3 SCC 505, for the rule that the applicable interval runs from the latest of service, affixture, or publication of the sale notice until the actual sale

This was a subsequent sale, so the Bank had to provide at least fifteen days’ notice.

Although the sale notice was published and reportedly affixed on 16.06.2017, it was dispatched to the borrower only on 20.06.2017. Counting from that later date, the 05.07.2017 auction occurred before fifteen clear days had elapsed; only fourteen days were available

The Court therefore found a breach of the mandatory notice requirement and held that the DRT and DRAT had failed to address it properly. It declined to follow the coordinate Bench decision cited by the Bank because that decision had not considered the binding Supreme Court ruling in *M. Rajendran*

It cancelled the 16.06.2017 sale notice and the 05.07.2017 auction

It directed the Bank to refund the auction purchaser’s sale consideration with simple interest at 9% from deposit until repayment, within two weeks of receiving the order

The Bank may pursue any outstanding loan dues; if all dues are settled, it must return the title documents and execute the necessary redemption documents. No costs were awarded