Yes. It’s mandatory also in subequent auctions

Under the SARFAESI Act, the borrower’s right to redeem is tied to the timelines in Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1). After the 2016 amendment to Section 13(8), the right to redeem is extinguished upon publication of the auction notice, but a fresh 30-day notice under Rule 8(6) is still required for any subsequent auction attempt, and the 30-day redemption window cannot be bypassed by a later sale. In short: yes, the 30-day Rule 8(6) notice is mandatory for subsequent auctions, and the borrower retains a sacrosanct right to redeem up to the point of that notice, with the subsequent sale subject to a shorter Rule 9(1) window.

Much depends on grounds claimed for seeking cancellation of auction sale. If grounds are known appropriate answer can be given. There are all possibilities under law. 

Chances of sale  being set aside by DRT are bleak 

In my considered view, since:

• The Bank has strictly followed due process under the SARFAESI Act.

• The borrower failed to exercise his right of redemption.

• The sale has been duly confirmed, and

• The sale deed has been registered and possession handed over.

— the auction sale has attained finality, and the DRT is unlikely to cancel the sale.

The borrower’s challenge, if any, may continue, but it is not expected to affect the validity of the registered sale unless a clear procedural illegality or fraud is established.

Recommendations

1. Retain all proofs of notice issuance, acknowledgements, and publication to show compliance.

2. File a comprehensive reply before the DRT highlighting strict adherence to the SARFAESI Rules.

3. Ensure mutation and possession are fully completed in the auction purchaser’s name.

4. Continue to monitor proceedings through counsel but remain confident—the chances of DRT cancelling this sale are extremely low.

In your case, the chances of DRT cancelling the sale are very minimal. The bank has followed proper SARFAESI procedure - issued Section 8(6) possession notice, then Section 9(1) public notice, conducted re-auction, confirmed the sale, delivered physical possession, and completed sale deed registration. Once the sale is confirmed and registered, and the borrower did not obtain any stay order before the sale or registration, the transaction attains finality.

The DRT generally interferes only if there is proven procedural irregularity, fraud, or violation of mandatory provisions under the SARFAESI Act. Since due notices were given, and the borrower participated only after the sale, his case is weak and time-barred under Section 17 (45-day limitation). Hence, the sale is valid and secure, and cancellation by DRT at this stage is highly unlikely.

Once the sale is confirmed and a registered sale deed has been executed in favour of the auction purchaser, the borrower’s right of redemption under Section 13(8) SARFAESI Act ceases.
Case filed after sale confirmation, hence borrower’s case is usually weak unless the sale procedure was defective.
If the statutory procedure (Rule 8 & 9) was correctly followed and sale deed executed, the sale is final and cannot be cancelled by DRT.
Therefore, chances of DRT cancelling the sale are extremely low.
Borrower’s only possible claim now is compensation, not recovery of property.
Since sale was confirmed in 2023 and sale deed registered in 2025 with proper procedure and no stay, DRT cannot cancel the sale now, except in case of proven procedural violation or fraud, which is rare.

In the situation you have described, the likelihood of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) cancelling the sale is very low, provided the bank followed the procedural requirements under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

Here, the timeline shows that all mandatory steps appear to have been complied with. The Rule 8(6) notice was issued on 31 July 2023 with the borrower’s acknowledgment. The Rule 9(1) public notice was published on 6 August 2023, and the auction was conducted on 22 August 2023. The sale was confirmed by the bank, physical possession was handed over, and the sale deed was registered in 2025. The borrower filed a case only after the sale was confirmed and registered, which is significantly delayed.

Under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, a borrower can challenge the bank’s actions before the DRT within 45 days of such action, including auction and sale. However, DRTs do not cancel a sale simply because a borrower files a case late. To succeed, the borrower must show that the bank committed procedural violations such as failure to issue proper notice, inadequate publication, improper valuation, or any fraudulent or collusive conduct that caused serious prejudice.

Once a sale is conducted as per Rules 8 and 9, and the borrower had due notice and opportunity, the DRT generally upholds it. After the sale is confirmed, a sale certificate is issued, and registration is completed, the title passes to the purchaser and becomes final. Courts have repeatedly held that once a sale is completed and possession delivered, it cannot be set aside except in rare cases of proven fraud or gross procedural illegality.

The borrower’s delay is also a key factor. Since the borrower filed the case after confirmation and registration of the sale deed, the challenge is likely barred by limitation. The DRT is unlikely to entertain the case unless the borrower proves fraud or collusion. The Supreme Court in several judgments, including Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar (2014) and J. Rajiv Subramaniyan v. Pandiyas (2014), has made it clear that once a bona fide sale is completed in compliance with the SARFAESI Act, the transaction cannot be reversed.

In your case, the bank issued proper notices under Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1), maintained the 30-day gap between the notice and the auction, and carried out a transparent sale. The borrower’s signature acknowledgment on the Rule 8(6) notice and the public newspaper publication under Rule 9(1) demonstrate compliance. Physical possession and registration further establish that the sale has attained legal finality.

Unless the borrower produces concrete evidence of fraud, collusion, or procedural lapses, the DRT will not cancel a completed and registered sale. It is also important to note that a borrower’s right to redeem the property ends once the sale is confirmed and the sale certificate is issued under Rule 9(6).

You should maintain complete documentation, including the 13(2) and 13(4) notices, proof of Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1) compliance, valuation report, sale confirmation letter, sale certificate, and registration proof. In the DRT proceedings, the bank or the auction purchaser should file a detailed written reply highlighting these points and stressing that the borrower’s challenge is both meritless and time-barred.

If you are the purchaser, you can also seek impleadment in the DRT case to protect your possession and title. Since physical possession and registration have already taken place, the borrower no longer has any enforceable right in the property.

In conclusion, based on the facts you have provided, the DRT is highly unlikely to cancel the sale. The borrower’s case is weak both on limitation and on merits, and the sale has already achieved finality through registration and possession.

Dear Client, 
In the scenario of a second-time auction where the first auction failed, and the bank issued a Section 8(6) notice with the borrower's signed acknowledgment, followed by a Section 9(1) public notice and completed the auction sale with physical possession and sale deed registration, the chances of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) canceling the sale are generally low. Under SARFAESI Act rules, the borrower’s right to redemption typically extinguishes upon the publication of the auction notice, especially if the statutory 30-day notice under Rule 8(6) and public notice under Rule 9(1) are duly issued. The borrower challenging the bank after the sale confirmation and registration must demonstrate procedural irregularities or non-compliance by the bank, such as failure to provide the mandatory notices or auction confirmation against DRT orders, for a sale cancellation claim to succeed. However, if the bank has complied strictly with the rules—issued the 8(6) notice, published the 9(1) notice with proper timelines, conducted the auction fairly, and completed the sale—DRT intervention leading to cancellation is unlikely. Courts have often held that a borrower cannot later claim redemption rights if the proper notice and time period were given before auction confirmation. Yet, if the borrower can prove any violation, such as the bank confirming the sale contrary to a DRT stay or improper notice, the DRT may cancel the sale. In your case, since possession and registration are done in 2025 post-auction in 2023, unless there is a clear procedural breach by the bank, chances of DRT cancelling the sale are minimal but not impossible depending on the specifics of the legal challenge. It is advisable to review the exact compliance with 8(6) and 9(1) notices and any previous DRT orders to assess risk more precisely.
I hope this answer helps. For any more queries, do not hesitate to contact us.

- If the bank has followed proper procedure like notice and publication , then the sale deed cannot be cancelled 

- As per Supreme Court in the matter of Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Ltd. versus . Ikbal,  once sale is confirmed and consideration paid, sale cannot be set aside easily.

Yes, DRT can likely cancel the sale.

Key Issue: DRAT Kolkata ruled in July 2025 that fresh 30-day Rule 8(6) notice is mandatory for second auction - even after first auction fails.​

Your Problem: If the July 3rd Rule 8(6) notice was for the first (failed) auction, the bank violated mandatory procedure by not issuing fresh notice for the second auction.​

Recent Precedent: DRAT Kolkata ordered ₹1.33 crore refund with 9% interest in similar case for same violation.​

Action: File immediately - strong grounds for cancellation due to procedural non-compliance.​

Success Rate: High, based on recent DRAT trend protecting borrowers' "sacrosanct right" to redemption.

1. The background of the case is required to me perused for commenting on the matter.

2. If there has been any error found in the SARFAESI action taken by the Bank later on and a SARFAESI Application is filed within the stipulated time, then the Tribunal might pass appropriate order against the Bank.

3. If it is found to be a bad mortgage based on faulty or fake Title Deed, then the aggrieved party might approach the High Court seeking relief.

The 30-day notice period under Rule 8(6) is mandatory for a subsequent auction because the right of redemption for the borrower is still protected until the sale notice is published under Rule 9(1). Issuing a fresh 30-day notice is necessary to give the borrower the guaranteed opportunity to pay off their dues before the sale can be finalized, even if previous sale attempts have failed

As the auction is subsequent and not the same for which notice is given. 

Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 provides that the authorised officer shall serve to the borrower a notice of thirty days for sale of the immovable secured asset, and shall also cause a public notice in newspapers setting out the terms of sale.

Thus, each sale notice must give the borrower 30 days’ clear notice before the auction date.

There is very little chance of cancellation of auction when bank followed proper 

 SARFAESI procedure. 

Yes, DRT can cancel the sale. High chances of success.

DRAT Kolkata July 2025 Precedent

DRAT Kolkata ruled in Canara Bank vs Sree Vijayasri Lakshmi Traders that fresh 30-day Rule 8(6) notice is mandatory for second auction, even after first auction fails. Bank ordered to refund ₹1.33 crore with 9% interest.​

Your Case Analysis

Fatal flaw: If the July 31, 2023 Rule 8(6) notice was for the first auction, bank violated mandatory procedure by not issuing fresh 30-day notice for the second auction.​

DRAT reasoning: Rule 9(1) proviso only shortens public notice period to 15 days - it does not eliminate the separate mandatory 30-day personal notice under Rule 8(6).​

Legal Position

Borrower's redemption right is "sacrosanct" - cannot be bypassed even in subsequent auctions. The 2016 amendment curtailing redemption rights makes the 30-day notice even more critical.​

Bank's argument rejected: DRAT dismissed Canara Bank's contention that earlier notice was sufficient.​

Recommendation

File immediately - procedural non-compliance provides strong grounds for cancellation. Recent DRAT trend consistently protects borrowers' rights in similar cases.

Merit of the case before the DRT depends on proper pleading and presentation of facts in right perspective. 

- The notice with 30 days is mandatory under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules.

Section 8(6) of the SARFAESI Act mandates a minimum 30-day notice before any sale of secured assets, regardless of whether it’s the first or subsequent auction. Each sale is a fresh process; hence, a fresh 30-day notice ensures transparency and gives the borrower another opportunity to redeem the property.