Kindly advice, Suppose Bank issue 8(1) notice where current Case No. SA correctly mentioned but wrong Case SA No. mentioned in 9(1) paper publication. So, Please advice If I participate in this Auction property, after buying there will be any Challenges from borrower side or any Legal problem will arise ? if there any supporting documents or any past judgement available , Please share Waiting for your Valuable feedback !
First answer received in 10 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
Borrower mast take plea that paper publication is not in respect of his property as case number is different
draw attention of bank to said mistake
dint participate in auction
@Ajay Sethi , Property details everything is correct, but only Correct SA no. not mentioned in 9(1) paper publication. Even Borrower received 8(6) notice , correct SA no. Kindly advice
If correct case number is not mentioned ask bank to rectify error by issue of fresh paper publication
don’t purchase the property in auction if no such rectification done
If the bank has erred in mentioning the case number and quoted a different case number in the paper publication instead of the original case number under which the action is being initiated, then it can be a grave error. The borrower can easily disclaim especially after the auction purchaser has bought the property, the borrower may even obtain a stay order against the auctioned property for this glaring error.
Therefore you can point this mistake to the bank and get it rectified before venturing into the auction process to purchase the property.
The incorrect case number may render the process initiated in this regard as redundant or not valid, especially when the borrower initiates action to obtain a stay order.
Therefore instead of running behind the stretched litigation for no fault of yours, it is advisable that you get the error rectified before hand or you may skip the auction purchase itself.
Plz advice even in 8(6) notice was correct CASE No. but wrong case no. in paper publication , for that reason it will Stay or Sale will be cancelled ?
It gives borrower grounds for appeal and seek stay and for setting aside sale
No as the details of auction will specify all details and sale certificate will include everything
It's an important to me because I already prepared for that , Auction will be held on tomorrow , there is any alternate option without cancel this Auction. Bank said that there is no matter because 13(4) , borrower right already ended. Paper publication for buyer, if buyer object then it will create problem otherwise it will be no matter. even Borrower received 8(6) notice where Case No mentioned correctly. Please suggest.
Nothing to worry for such minor thing if you still have apprehension you can seek clarification from bank
Purpose of 9 (1) notice is to give opportunity to borrower to arrange for settlement of outstanding and avoid auction. When case No. is wrong in such notice, borrower can claim that he is misled by wrong case No. there did not attempt to settle the outstanding. Such misleading is valid reason for getting the auction sale set aside. Notwithstanding other procedure.
The notice in a paper publication was issued for a different cae and not for the current case, hence it may not be legally valid. Hence the borrower may even go for stay of the proceedings.
You are referring to the 9(1) notice which was published in the newspaper with wrong/incorrect case number, hence it will certainly create problem
The buyer should object to this because he should not buy wrong property than what ws given as an offer to him
When your hard earned money is concerned take zero risk
don’t participate in auction
This error is not material and will not pose any problem for the successful auction purchaser.
In any event after sale notice the right of borrower to redeem the mortgage goes.
PROCEED WITH AUCTION
Wrong SA number = minor clerical error
Borrower got correct 8(6) notice
Section 13(4) redemption period ended
Sale won't be cancelled for this
If the bank has issued an 8(1) notice correctly mentioning the SA case number but the 9(1) paper publication shows an incorrect SA case number, this by itself is not likely to invalidate the auction, provided the essential particulars such as the property description, borrower’s identity, and other statutory details are correctly stated. Courts generally view minor clerical or typographical errors in sale notices as curable defects when they do not cause any real prejudice to the borrower or third parties. Since in your case the borrower has admittedly received the 8(6) notice with the correct case number, they have been duly informed of the proceedings, and their right to redeem or object ordinarily ends after the expiry of the timelines under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules.
The borrower may still attempt to challenge the sale citing procedural irregularities, including the wrong case number in the 9(1) publication. However, case law shows that unless they can demonstrate loss of opportunity, fraud, or substantive prejudice, courts are reluctant to set aside a concluded auction merely on such minor grounds, especially where other notices were correctly issued and served. Recent rulings by the Supreme Court and several High Courts have confirmed that confirmed SARFAESI sales will not be undone for trivial procedural defects if statutory requirements have been substantially complied with.
On the facts described, it appears safe to participate in the auction if the bank confirms that all key notices, timelines, and procedures have been duly followed apart from the incorrect case number in the paper advertisement. To safeguard your position, you may ask the bank for a written clarification that the error is typographical and does not affect the validity of the sale, and check that no stay order or adverse direction has been issued by any court or DRT.
In short, a wrong SA number in the 9(1) paper publication, with correct details in the 8(1) and 8(6) notices served on the borrower, is unlikely by itself to lead to the auction being cancelled, and you can proceed with bidding while keeping records of the bank’s confirmation for future reference.
1. Though it is a clerical mistake, the Borrower will have a chance to agitate on the subject before the DRT and might get a stay order on the sale of the mortgaged property or issuance of Sale Certificate.
2. It will be prudent on your part to ask the Bank to issue & publish a Corrigendum in this regard.
3. In the interest of the Bank, they might agree to issue the said Corrigendum.
4. Though SARFAESI is considered as a Draconian Act, the vital error committed in the paper publication might influence the Presiding Officer of the DRT to grant stay on the sale.
1. There is an error committed in the paper publication.
2. It is required to be corrected.
3. Ask Bank to publish corrigendum in this regard.
1. It is difficult to predict what the P.O. will decide for the said error.
2. However, as far as Kolkata DRTs are considered, stay for sale might be granted for the said error and the Bank might be compelled to reissue the sale notice and publish it afresh.
1. The Bank has provided wishful explanation.
2. Borrower might claim that because of the error in the paper publication, he/they could not react to it.
3. No body can surely predict what the PO will decide, if the Borrower files a IA before the DRT praying cancellation/stay on the Sale.