2025 INSC 1137 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12174 OF 2025 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11068 of 2023] M. RAJENDRAN & ORS. …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S KPK OILS AND PROTIENS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12175 OF 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14696 of 2023] J U D G M E N T Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2025.09.22 18:40:31 IST Reason: J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: For the convenience of the exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: – INDEX I. FACTUAL MATRIX 3 A. Proceedings before the DRT 8 II. IMPUGNED ORDER 10 III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES 13 A. Submissions on behalf of the appellants 14 B. Submissions on behalf of the borrowers 14 IV. ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION 15 V. ANALYSIS 15 A. Legislative History and Scheme of the SARFAESI Act 15 i. The impetus behind enactment of the SARFAESI Act 16 ii. Relevant Statutory Provisions at Play 22 B. Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act and the Decision of this Court in Bafna Motors 39 i. Factual Scenario in Bafna Motors 44 ii. Ratio of the Decision of Bafna Motors 47 a. Position of Law prevailing prior to the Amendment of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act 48 b. The 2016 Amendment to Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act and the Contradictory Views on the subject 58 c. Effect of the 2016 Amendment on the Right of Redemption under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act 77 C. How the decision of this Court in Bafna Motors should be understood? 81 i. There cannot be any artificial distinction in the right of redemption under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act for different modes of transfer 82 a. Scheme for sale of Immovable Secured Asset under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule(s) 8 and 9 of the SARFAESI Rules 82 ii. There is only a single Notice of Sale required under Rule 8(6) of the SARFAESI Rules for transfer of secured asset, by lease, assignment or sale. 101 a. Contradictory Views of the High Court on the subject 102 b. The Scheme under the SARFAESI Rules envisages one single composite Notice of Sale of Immovable Secured Asset 105 iii. What is the import of the expression “before the date of publication” used in Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act 125 D. Whether, the Amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act is retrospective in nature? 129 VI. FINAL CONCLUSION 135   1. Leave granted. 2. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. These appeals arise from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 24.04.2023 in Writ Petition No. 1882 of 2023 with Writ Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 1987-1988 of 2023 respectively by which the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 respectively herein and thereby the Sale Certificate issued by the respondent No. 5 in favour of the appellants (Auction Purchasers) dated 22.03.2021 came to be quashed and the respondent No. 5 Bank was directed to permit the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein to redeem the mortgage and close the loan account of the borrowers. I. FACTUAL MATRIX 4. For the sake of convenience, the appellants herein shall be referred to as the Auction Purchasers. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 respectively hereinafter referred to as the Original Borrowers and the respondent No. 5 shall hereinafter be referred to as the Bank. 5. The borrowers availed cash credit facilities on 06.01.2016 from the Bank to the tune of Rs. 5 crore and a term loan of Rs. 30 lakh respectively. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively herein stood as guarantors by creating equitable mortgage over various immovable properties including the “Subject Property” vide the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds bearing Document No. 68 of 2016 dated 06.1.2016 with the Sub Registrar Office, Dharapuram for the purpose of securing the repayment of the credit facilities. 6. The description of the subject property is as under: – “Vacant dry land to an extent of 1.92 acres in Old S.F. NO. 540, 541 and New S.F. No.476/2, Dharapuram Alangiyam Road, Chitraravuthanpalayam, Dharapuram Taluk, Triuppur District. Boundaries: On the South by : East West in RS No. 535 On the West by: 0.89 acres of land belonging to Nachimuthu Gounder in RSNo. 476/2 On the North by : Land belonging to Kuppusamy Gounder in RS No. 476/1. On the East by: Land belonging to Palanisamy and Vallinayaki in RSNo. 475/3.” 7. It may not be out of place to state at this stage that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 respectively herein are the son and daughter in law respectively of the respondent No. 2 who had executed guarantees to secure repayment of the credit facilities availed by KPK Oils Limited i.e., Original Borrowers. 8. On 31.12.2019, the borrower’s auction was classified as a NonPerforming Asset (NPA) by the Bank due to default in repayment of the outstanding dues. 9. On 12.02.2020, the Bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the “SARFAESI Act”) for the outstanding dues of INR 3,96,15,672 payable as on 31.12.2019. 10. It is not in dispute that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 respectively had not preferred any representation under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act. 11. On 28.10.2020, the Bank issued notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act seeking to take over the possession of the secured asset for the debt amount of INR 4,39,82,862.20 due and payable as on 30.09.2020. 12. On 31.10.2020, the Bank published Possession Notice in two newspapers, namely, “New Indian Express” in English and “Dinamani” in vernacular language. 13. On 28.12.2020, the MD and Partner of the Borrower i.e., the respondent No. 4 herein filed S.A. No. 5 and 7 of 2020 respectively under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the Possession Notice dated 28.10.2020 before the DRT, Coimbatore. 14. On 22.01.2021, the Bank issued an Auction Sale Notice accordance with Rule 8 read with Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, (for short, the “SARFAESI Rules”) for sale of the secured subject property for recovery of INR 4,55,64,590.20 due and payable as on 31.12.2020. 15. On 24.01.2021, the aforesaid Auction Sale Notice of the subject immovable property was also published in the “New Indian Express” and “Dinamani” newspapers respectively. 16. Sometime in February 2021, the borrowers along with Shri Palanisami filed S.A. No. 160 of 2021 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the aforesaid Auction Sale Notice before the DRT, Coimbatore. 17. On 26.02.2021, the appellants herein participated and successfully bid in Auction Sale for sale consideration of Rs. 1,25,60,000/-. On 20.03.2021, the appellants herein deposited the entire sale consideration of INR 1,25,60,000 with the Bank. 18. On 22.03.2021, upon payment of the entire sale consideration the Bank issued a Sale Certificate in favour of the appellants. 19. The sale consideration received by the Bank was appropriated towards the outstanding loan amount. In March 2021, after the sale came to be confirmed the borrowers paid a sum of Rs. 2,88,00,000 towards the outstanding dues under the loan. It is pertinent to note that at the relevant point of time an amount of INR 61,91,000 was still outstanding towards the loan amount. A. Proceedings before the DRT. 20. After the completion of sale and issuance of the Sale Certificate, the DRT passed an order of status quo dated 26.03.2021. Since the appellants herein were not made party to the proceedings before the DRT, the DRT vide order dated 26.03.2021 proceeded to pass an order of status quo despite the fact that the appellants herein were not made party in the said proceedings. Later an application for impleadment was filed by the appellants in the proceedings before the DRT. 21. On 07.05.2021, the borrowers paid an amount of INR 62,74,123.74 towards the outstanding dues for releasing the other properties. 22. On 07.05.2021, the Bank closed the loan account of the borrowers after appropriating a sum of INR 1,25,60,000 received by it out of the sale consideration on auction of the secured assets as aforesaid. 23. On 14.07.2021, the application for impleadment filed by the appellant came to be allowed. 24. On 07.12.2021, 14.03.2021, 01.06.2022, 24.06.2022 and 11.07.2022 respectively, adjournments were sought in S.A. No. 160 of 2021 by the borrowers. Once again on 06.05.2022, 01.06.2022, 24.06.2022, and 11.07.2022 respectively, adjournments were sought in S.A. No. 517 of 2020. 25. On 19.01.2023, the DRT, Coimbatore dismissed the SA No. 517 of 2020 wherein the Possession Notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was under challenge. On the very same day and date the DRT by a separate judgment dismissed the S.A. No. 160 of 2021 wherein the Sale Notice dated 22.01.2021 was under challenge. II. IMPUGNED ORDER 26. The borrowers without availing the alternative statutory remedy of preferring statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal went to the High Court and preferred Writ Petition No. 1882 of 2023, seeking to challenge the Sale Certificate dated 22.03.2021 for the first time. 27. The High Court vide order dated 24.01.2023 issued notice and directed that status quo be maintained as the borrowers were ready and willing to clear the outstanding dues by paying INR 50,00,000 by 25.01.2023 and the balance amount within a period of next seven working days. 28. On 24.01.2023, the borrowers deposited INR 50,00,000 with the Bank. Another demand draft of INR 92,01,158 dated 31.01.2023 was deposited by them with the Bank. 29. The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the issue as regards the right to redemption under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act was no long res integra in view of the decision of this Court in Mathew Varghese v. Amritha Kumar and Ors. reported in (2014) 5 SCC 610. 30. The High Court while allowing the writ petition filed by the borrowers held as under: “10. Thus, in spite of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon-ble Supreme Court of India, the DRT has been time and again holding that the right of redemption is lost on the fall of the hammer as per Section 13(8) which is legally unsustainable and therefore only in the extraordinary circumstances, as the question of law has to be made clear this writ petition is entertained by this Court and therefore, the objection on the ground of alternative remedy, though is a valid objection and is also followed by this Court generally in relegating the parties only to the DRT, in view of the above peculiar and extraordinary circumstance, and because the contention of the borrower / guarantors was not on air, but by paying the entire sum outstanding to the bank, as an exceptional case this writ petition is entertained by this Court and accordingly we over rule the said objection raised on behalf of the respondents. 11. It is the objection of the respondent bank that initially when the petitioners paid a sum of Rs.2,88,00,000/~ in the month of March 2021 and thereafter Rs.62,74,123.74/~ on 17.05.2021, by accepting the sale of the property and by closing the loan account is concerned, except for the bald averment in Para 5 of the counter affidavit, no material whatsoever is produced before this Court. If such is the case, there would have been written communications to that effect on either side. Besides, it could be seen that even in the interim order dated 26.03.2021 was passed by the DRT, the following has been stated; Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that the property is sold on the scheduled date of auction and the Sale Certificate is also issued. However, the Sale Certificate is not registered as of now. The Applicant also paid substantial amount of dues of about 50% of the amount claimed. The Applicant having paid a substantial amount of about 50% of the claim amount, this Tribunal is of the view that a status-quo order is required to be passed in the interest of justice. Hence, there shall be an order of status quo as of today. Meanwhile, the Applicant directed to initiate steps to implead the auction purchaser in this case. 12. Therefore, had the petitioner agreed for the same and remitted Rs.2,88,00,000/- in the month of March 2021, the same would have been brought to the notice of the DRT also and an order of status quo not to register the sale certificate would not have been granted. Therefore when the borrower, for some reasons, did not repay the loan promptly, but however manages to pay the entire amount as claimed by the respondent bank even at the last minute, the same cannot be rejected on technical reasons, as the very purpose of the law of mortgage is to create security for the loan and not to result in the ownership of the property being transferred. 13. While we overrule the objections on behalf of the respondents, we hold that the auction purchasers will be entitled for the return of the entire sum of Rs.1,25,60,000/- paid by them and they will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of remitting the amounts till the date of repayment. It goes without saying that it is only the writ petitioners / borrowers who have to make good the said interest amount.” 31. The High Court ultimately issued the following directions in para 14 which reads thus: “14. In the result, (a) The writ petition is allowed and the impugned sale certificate dated 22.03.2021 issued by the first respondent in favour of the respondents 3 to 11 stands quashed. (b)The first respondent is directed to close the Loan A/c No.136700150950167 as the entire due amount is already paid; (c)The first respondent shall also issue due receipt for the discharge of mortgage and the same shall be presented before the appropriate Sub Registrar; (d)The first respondent bank is directed to refund the entire sum of Rs.1,25,60,000/~ to the respondents 3 to 11 within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (e)The first respondent bank shall also calculate the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the said amount paid by the auction purchasers from the date of the respective remittance of the amount till the date of repayment and intimate the same by writing to the petitioners within one week thereafter. (f)Upon receipt of the written communication from the first respondent bank, the entire interest amount shall be remitted to the first respondent bank within one week therefrom by the writ petitioners and the first respondent bank shall pay out the same to the respondents 3 to 11; (g)It is made clear that if the writ petitioners default in the payment of interest as aforesaid within the aforesaid time the writ petition shall stand dismissed automatically without any further reference to this Court.” 32. In such circumstances referred to above, the auction purchasers are here before this Court with the present appeal. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Submissions on behalf of the appellants. 33. Mr. K.S. Mahadevan, the learned counsel appearing for the Auction Purchasers vehemently submitted that the High Court committed an egregious error in entertaining the writ petition and passing the impugned judgment and order. He would submit that the issues involved in the present appeal are now covered by a decision of this Court in Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Ltd. reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1. 34. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel would submit that there being merit in his appeal the same may be allowed and the impugned judgment and order be quashed. B. Submissions on behalf of the borrowers. 35. Mr. Huzefa Ahmedi, the learned counsel appearing for the borrowers while opposing this appeal vehemently submitted that the ratio or rather the principles enunciated in Bafna Motors (supra) are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He would submit that in the case in hand the loan was obtained on 06.01.2016 whereas Section 13(8) came to be amended with effect from 01.09.2016. He would submit that the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act would not have retrospective operation. He would submit that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned order. 36. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel would submit that there being no merit in this appeal the same may be dismissed. IV. ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION 37. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order? V. ANALYSIS A. Legislative History and Scheme of the SARFAESI Act. i. The impetus behind enactment of the SARFAESI Act. 38. Till early 1990s, the civil suits were being filed for recovery of the dues of banks and financial institutions under the Act 1882 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). Due to various difficulties the banks and financial institutions had to face in recovering loans and enforcement of securities, the Parliament enacted the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, the “RDBFI Act”). 39. On account of lack of infrastructure and manpower, the regular civil courts were not in a position to cope up with the speed in the adjudication of recovery cases. In the light of recommendations of the Tiwari Committee the special tribunals came to be set up under the provisions of the RDBFI Act referred to above for the recovery of huge accumulated NPA of the Bank loans. 40. On the continuing rise in number of Non-Performing Assets (NPA) at banks and other financial institutions in India; a poor rate of loan recovery and the failure of the existing legislation in redressing the difficulties of recovery by banks; the Narasimham Committee I & II and Andyarujina Committee were constituted by the Government for examining and suggesting banking reforms in India. These Committees in their reports observed that one out of every five borrower was a defaulter, and that due to the long and tedious process of existing frame work of law and the overburdening of existing forums including the specialised tribunals under the 1993 Act, any attempt of recovery with the assistance of court/tribunal often rendered the secured asset nearly worthless due to the long delays. In this background the Committees thus, proposed new laws for securitisation in order to permit banks and financial institutions to hold securities and sell them in a timely manner without the involvement of the courts. 41. On the recommendations of the Narasimham Committee and Andyarujina Committee, the SARFAESI Act was enacted to empower the banks and financial institutions to take possession of the securities and to sell them without intervention of the court. 42. The statement of objects and reasons for which the Act has been enacted reads as under: – “STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS The financial sector has been one of the key drivers in India’s efforts to achieve success in rapidly developing its economy. While the banking industry in India is progressively complying with the international prudential norms and accounting practices there are certain areas in which the banking and financial sector do not have a level playing field as compared to other participants in the financial markets in the world. There is no legal provision for facilitating securitisation of financial assets of banks and financial institutions. Further, unlike international banks, the banks and financial institutions in India do not have power to take possession of securities and sell them. Our existing legal framework relating to commercial transactions has not kept pace with the changing commercial practices and financial sector reforms. This has resulted in slow pace of recovery of defaulting loans and mounting levels of non-performing assets of banks and financial institutions. Narasimham Committee I and II and Andhyarujina Committee constituted by the Central Government for the purpose of examining banking sector reforms have considered the need for changes in the legal system in respect of these areas. These Committees, inter alia, have suggested enactment of a new legislation for securitisation and empowering banks and financial institutions to take possession of the securities and to sell them without the intervention of the court. Acting on these suggestions, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Ordinance, 2002 was promulgated on the 21st June, 2002 to regulate securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The provisions of the Ordinance would enable banks and financial institutions to realise long-term assets, manage problem of liquidity, asset liability mismatches and improve recovery by exercising powers to take possession of securities, sell them and reduce nonperforming assets by adopting measures for recovery or reconstruction.” 43. This Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 311, examined the history and legislative backdrop that ultimately led to the enactment of the SARFAESI Act as under: – “34. Some facts which need to be taken note of are that the banks and the financial institutions have heavily financed the petitioners and other industries. It is also a fact that a large sum of amount remains unrecovered. Normal process of recovery of debts through courts is lengthy and time taken is not suited for recovery of such dues. For financial assistance rendered to the industries by the financial institutions, financial liquidity is essential failing which there is a blockade of large sums of amounts creating circumstances which retard the economic progress followed by a large number of other consequential ill effects. Considering all these circumstances, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act was enacted in 1993 but as the figures show it also did not bring the desired results. Though it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it so happened due to inaction on the part of the Governments in creating Debts Recovery Tribunals and appointing presiding officers, for a long time. Even after leaving that margin, it is to be noted that things in the spheres concerned are desired to move faster. In the present-day global economy it may be difficult to stick to old and conventional methods of financing and recovery of dues. Hence, in our view, it cannot be said that a step taken towards securitisation of the debts and to evolve means for faster recovery of NPAs was not called for or that it was superimposition of undesired law since one legislation was already operating in the field, namely, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. It is also to be noted that the idea has not erupted abruptly to resort to such a legislation. It appears that a thought was given to the problems and the Narasimham Committee was constituted which recommended for such a legislation keeping in view the changing times and economic situation whereafter yet another Expert Committee was constituted, then alone the impugned law was enacted. Liquidity of finances and flow of money is essential for any healthy and growth-oriented economy. But certainly, what must be kept in mind is that the law should not be in derogation of the rights which are guaranteed to the people under the Constitution. The procedure should also be fair, reasonable and valid, though it may vary looking to the different situations needed to be tackled and object sought to be achieved. xxx xxx xxx 36. In its Second Report, the Narasimham Committee observed that NPAs in 1992 were uncomfortably high for most of the public sector banks. In Chapter VIII of the Second Report the Narasimham Committee deals about legal and legislative framework and observed: “8.1. A legal framework that clearly defines the rights and liabilities of parties to contracts and provides for speedy resolution of disputes is a sine qua non for efficient trade and commerce, especially for financial intermediation. In our system, the evolution of the legal framework has not kept pace with changing commercial practice and with the financial sector reforms. As a result, the economy has not been able to reap the full benefits of the reforms process. As an illustration, we could look at the scheme of mortgage in the Transfer of Property Act, which is critical to the work of financial intermediaries….” One of the measures recommended in the circumstances was to vest the financial institutions through special statutes, the power of sale of the assets without intervention of the court and for reconstruction of assets. It is thus to be seen that the question of non-recoverable or delayed recovery of debts advanced by the banks or financial institutions has been attracting attention and the matter was considered in depth by the Committees specially constituted consisting of the experts in the field. In the prevalent situation where the amounts of dues are huge and hope of early recovery is less, it cannot be said that a more effective legislation for the purpose was uncalled for or that it could not be resorted to. It is again to be noted that after the Report of the Narasimham Committee, yet another Committee was constituted headed by Mr Andhyarujina for bringing about the needed steps within the legal framework. We are therefore, unable to find much substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that while the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act was in operation it was uncalled for to have yet another legislation for the recovery of the mounting dues. Considering the totality of circumstances and the financial climate world over, if it was thought as a matter of policy to have yet speedier legal method to recover the dues, such a policy decision cannot be faulted with nor is it a matter to be gone into by the courts to test the legitimacy of such a measure relating to financial policy.” 44. In this regard, reference may also be made to the following observations of this Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Ors. reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 which laid emphasis on the need for an expeditious mechanism for recovery of debts as the impetus for the enactment of the SARFAESI Act. The relevant observations read as under: – “1. […] With a view to give impetus to the industrial development of the country, the Central and State Governments encouraged the banks and other financial institutions to formulate liberal policies for grant of loans and other financial facilities to those who wanted to set up new industrial units or expand the existing units. Many hundred thousand took advantage of easy financing by the banks and other financial institutions but a large number of them did not repay the amount of loan, etc. Not only this, they instituted frivolous cases and succeeded in persuading the civil courts to pass orders of injunction against the steps taken by banks and financial institutions to recover their dues. Due to lack of adequate infrastructure and non-availability of manpower, the regular courts could not accomplish the task of expeditiously adjudicating the cases instituted by banks and other financial institutions for recovery of their dues. As a result, several hundred crores of public money got blocked in unproductive ventures. 2. In order to redeem the situation, the Government of India constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of Shri T. Tiwari to examine the legal and other difficulties faced by banks and financial institutions in the recovery of their dues and suggest remedial measures. The Tiwari Committee noted that the existing procedure for recovery was very cumbersome and suggested that special tribunals be set up for recovery of the dues of banks and financial institutions by following a summary procedure. The Tiwari Committee also prepared a draft of the proposed legislation which contained a provision for disposal of cases in three months and conferment of power upon the Recovery Officer for expeditious execution of orders made by adjudicating bodies.” ii. Relevant Statutory Provisions at Play. 45. Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act contains the provisions relating to the enforcement of the security interest and the manner in which the same may be done by the secured creditor without the intervention of the court or tribunal in accordance with its provisions. The said provision reads as under: – “13. Enforcement of security interest.– (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of the court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any instalment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section (4). Provided that – (i) the requirement of classification of secured debt as non performing asset under this sub-section shall not apply to a borrower who has raised funds through issue of debt securities; and (ii) in the event of default, the debenture trustee shall be entitled to enforce security interest in the same manner as provided under this section with such modifications as may be necessary and in accordance with the terms and conditions of security documents executed in favour of the debenture trustee; (3) The notice referred to in sub-section (2) shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor in the event of non payment of secured debts by the borrower. (3A) If, on receipt of the notice under sub-section (2), the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate within fifteen days of receipt of such representation or objection the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower: Provided that the reasons so communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons shall not confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 or the Court of District Judge under section 17A. (4) In case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub-section (2), the secured creditor may take recourse to one or more of the following measures to recover his secured debt, namely:— (a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset; (b) take over the management of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset: Provided that the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale shall be exercised only where the substantial part of the business of the borrower is held as security for the debt: Provided further that where the management of whole of the business or part of the business is severable, the secured creditor shall take over the management of such business of the borrower which is relatable to the security for the debt; (c) appoint any person (hereafter referred to as the manager), to manage the secured assets the possession of which has been taken over by the secured creditor; (d) require at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt. (5) Any payment made by any person referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (4) to the secured creditor shall give such person a valid discharge as if he has made payment to the borrower. (5A) Where the sale of an immovable property, for which a reserve price has been specified, has been postponed for want of a bid of an amount not less than such reserve price, it shall be lawful for any officer of the secured creditor, if so authorised by the secured creditor in this behalf, to bid for the immovable property on behalf of the secured creditor at any subsequent sale. (5B) Where the secured creditor, referred to in sub-section (5A), is declared to be the purchaser of the immovable property at any subsequent sale, the amount of the purchase price shall be adjusted towards the amount of the claim of the secured creditor for which the auction of enforcement of security interest is taken by the secured creditor, under sub-section (4) of section 13. (5C) The provisions of section 9 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) shall, as far as may be, apply to the immovable property acquired by secured creditor under sub-section (5A). (6) Any transfer of secured asset after taking possession thereof or take over of management under sub-section (4), by the secured creditor or by the manager on behalf of the secured creditor shall vest in the transferee all rights in, or in relation to, the secured such secured asset. (7) Where any action has been taken against a borrower under the provisions of sub-section (4), all costs, charges and expenses which, in the opinion of the secured creditor, have been properly incurred by him or any expenses incidental thereto, shall be recoverable from the borrower and the money which is received by the secured creditor shall, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, be held by him in trust, to be applied, firstly, in payment of such costs, charges and expenses and secondly, in discharge of the dues of the secured creditor and the residue of the money so received shall be paid to the person entitled thereto in accordance with his rights and interests. (8) Where the amount of dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by him is tendered to the secured creditor at any time before the date of publication of notice for public auction or inviting quotations or tender from public or private treaty for transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale of the secured assets,- (i) the secured assets shall not be transferred by way of lease assignment or sale by the secured creditor; and (ii) in case, any step has been taken by the secured creditor for transfer by way of lease or assignment or sale of the assets before tendering of such amount under this sub-section, no further step shall be taken by such secured creditor for transfer by way of lease or assignment or sale of such secured assets. (9) Subject to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in the case of financing of a financial asset by more than one secured creditors or joint financing of a financial asset by secured creditors, no secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise any or all of the rights conferred on him under or pursuant to sub-section (4) unless exercise of such right is agreed upon by the secured creditors representing not less than sixty per cent. in value of the amount outstanding as on a record date and such action shall be binding on all the secured creditors: Provided that in the case of a company in liquidation, the amount realised from the sale of secured assets shall be distributed in Act, 1956 (1 of 1956): Provided further that in the case of a company being wound up on or after the commencement of this Act, the secured creditor of such company, who opts to realise his security instead of relinquishing his security and proving his debt under proviso to sub-section (1) of section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), may retain the sale proceeds of his secured assets after depositing the workmen’s dues with the liquidator in accordance with the provisions of section 529A of that Act: Provided also that liquidator referred to in the second proviso shall intimate the secured creditor the workmen’s dues in accordance with the provisions of section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) and in case such workmen’s dues cannot be ascertained, the liquidator shall intimate the estimated amount of workmen’s dues under that section to the secured creditor and in such case the secured creditor may retain the sale proceeds of the secured assets after depositing the amount of such estimate dues with the liquidator: Provided also that in case the secured creditor deposits the estimated amount of workmen’s dues, such creditor shall be liable to pay the balance of the workmen’s dues or entitled to receive the excess amount, if any, deposited by the secured creditor with the liquidator: Provided also that the secured creditor shall furnish an undertaking to the liquidator to pay the balance of the workmen’s dues, if any. Explanation.— For the purposes of this subsection,— (a) “record date” means the date agreed upon by the secured creditors representing not less than sixty per cent. in value of the amount outstanding on such date; (b) “amount outstanding” shall include principal, interest and any other dues payable by the borrower to the secured creditor in respect of secured asset as per the books of account of the secured creditor. (10) Where dues of the secured creditor are not fully satisfied with the sale proceeds of the secured assets, the secured creditor may file an application in the form and manner as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction or a competent court, as the case may be, for recovery of the balance amount from the borrower. (11) Without prejudice to the rights conferred on the secured creditor under or by this section, secured creditor shall be entitled to proceed against the guarantors or sell the pledged assets without first taking any of the measured specifies in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (4) in relation to the secured assets under this Act. (12) The rights of a secured creditor under this Act may be exercised by one or more of his officers authorised in this behalf in such manner as may be prescribed. (13) No borrower shall, after receipt of notice referred to in sub section (2), transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise (other than in the ordinary course of his business) any of his secured assets referred to in the notice, without prior written consent of the secured creditor.” 46. Rules 8 and 9 respectively of the SARFAESI Rules prescribe the procedure and formalities to be followed for the sale of immovable secured asset as per Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. 47. Rule 8 of the SARFAESI Rules stipulates the manner in which sale of an immovable secured asset may take place at the behest of the secured creditor, and reads as under: – “8. Sale of immovable secured assets.– (1) Where the secured asset is an immovable property, the authorised officer shall take or cause to be taken possession, by delivering a possession notice prepared as nearly as possible in Appendix IV to these rules, to the borrower and by affixing the possession notice on the outer door or at such conspicuous place of the property. (2) The possession notice as referred to in sub-rule (1) shall also be published, as soon as possible but in any case not later than seven days from the date of taking possession, in two leading newspaper one in vernacular language having sufficient circulation in that locality, by the authorised officer. (2A) All notices under these rules may also be served upon the borrower through electronic mode of service, in addition to the modes prescribed under sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of rule 8. (3) In the event of possession of immovable property is actually taken by the authorised officer, such property shall be kept in his own custody or in the custody of any person authorised or appointed by him, who shall take as much care of the property in his custody as a owner of ordinary prudence would, under the similar circumstances, take of such property. (4) The authorised officer shall take steps for preservation and protection of secured assets and insure them, if necessary, till they are sold or otherwise disposed of. (5) Before effecting sale of the immovable property referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 9, the authorised officer shall obtain valuation of the property from an approved valuer and in consultation with the secured creditor, fix the reserve price of the property and may sell the whole or any part of such immovable secured asset by any of the following methods:- (a) by obtaining quotations from the persons dealing with similar secured assets or otherwise interested in buying the such assets; or (b) by inviting tenders from the public; (c) by holding public auction including through eauction mode; or (d) by private treaty. Provided that in case of sale of immovable property in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the provision of Jammu and Kashmir Transfer of Property Act, 1977 shall apply to the person who acquires such property in the State. (6) the authorised officer shall serve to the borrower a notice of thirty days for sale of the immovable secured assets, under sub rule (5): Provided that if the sale of such secured asset is being effected by either inviting tenders from the public or by holding public auction, the secured creditor shall cause a public notice in the Form given in Appendix IV-A to be published in two leading newspapers including one in vernacular language having wide circulation in the locality. (7) every notice of sale shall be affixed on the conspicuous part of the immovable property and the authorised officer shall upload the detailed terms and conditions of the sale, on the web-site of the secured creditor, which shall include; (a) the description of the immovable property to be sold, including the details of the encumbrances known to the secured creditor; (b) the secured debt for recovery of which the property is to be sold; (c) reserve price of the immovable secured assets below which the property may not be sold; (d) time and place of public auction or the time after which sale by any other mode shall be completed; (e) deposit of earnest money as may be stipulated by the secured creditor; (f) any other terms and conditions, which the authorised officer considers it necessary for a purchaser to know the nature and value of the property. (8) Sale by any methods other than public auction or public tender, shall be on such terms as may be settled between the secured creditors and the proposed purchaser in writing.” 48. On the other hand, Rule 9 of the SARFAESI Rules provides when the immovable property may be sold by the secured creditor, or put it simply, the time of sale along with the formalities by which such sale would be concluded. The said rule reads as under: – “9. Time of sale, issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession, etc.– (1) No sale of immovable property under these rules, in first instance shall take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (6) of rule 8 or notice of sale has been served to the borrower: Provided further that if sale of immovable property by any one of the methods specified by sub-rule (5) of rule 8 fails and sale is required to be conducted again, the authorised officer shall serve, affix and publish notice of sale of not less than fifteen days to the borrower, for any subsequent sale. (2) The sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered the highest sale price in his bid or tender or quotation or offer to the authorised officer and shall be subject to confirmation by the secured creditor: Provided that no sale under this rule shall be confirmed, if the amount offered by sale price is less than the reserve price, specified under sub-rule (5) of rule 8: Provided further that if the authorised officer fails to obtain a price higher than the reserve price, he may, with the consent of the borrower and the secured creditor effect the sale at such price. (3) On every sale of immovable property, the purchaser shall immediately, i.e. on the same day or not later than next working day, as the case may be, pay a deposit of twenty five per cent. of the amount of the sale price, which is inclusive of earnest money deposited, if any, to the authorised officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall be sold again; by the purchaser to the authorised officer on or before the fifteenth day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser and the secured creditor, in any case not exceeding three months. (5) In default of payment within the period mentioned in sub-rule (4), the deposit shall be forfeited to the secured creditor and the property shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold. (6) On confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of payment have been complied with, the authorised officer exercising the power of sale shall issue a certificate of sale of the immovable property in favour of the purchaser in the Form given in Appendix V to these rules. (7) Where the immovable property sold is subject to any encumbrances, the authorised officer may, if he thinks fit, allow the purchaser to deposit with him the money required to discharge the encumbrances and any interest due thereon together with such additional amount that may be sufficient to meet the contingencies or further cost, expenses and interest as may be determined by him. Provided that if after meeting the cost of removing encumbrances and contingencies there is any surplus available out of money deposited by the purchaser such surplus shall be paid to the purchaser within fifteen days, from date of finalisation of the sale. (8) On such deposit of money for discharge of the encumbrances, the authorised officer shall issue or cause the purchaser to issue notices to the persons interested in or entitled to the money deposited with him and take steps to make, the payment accordingly. (9) The authorised officer shall deliver the property to the purchaser free from encumbrances known to the secured creditor on deposit of money as specified in sub-rule (7) above. (10) The certificate of sale issued under sub-rule (6) shall specifically mention that whether the purchaser has purchased the immovable secured asset free from any encumbrances known to the secured creditor or not.” 49. Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act contains the overriding clause and provides that the Act shall override any other law which is inconsistent with its provisions, and reads as under: – “35. The provisions of this Act to override other laws.– The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.” 50. Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act provides that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act shall be in addition to the Acts mentioned in or and any other law for the time being in force and further that the other laws shall also be applicable alongside the SARFAESI Act. The said provision reads as under: – “37. Application of other laws not barred.– The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956), the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) or any other law for the time being in force.” 51. This Court in Madras Petrochem Ltd. & Anr. v. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction & Ors. reported in (2016) 4 SCC 1, recapitulated the object behind the enactment of the SARFAESI Act and in that context examined the purpose of Sections 13, 35 and 37 respectively of the SARFAESI Act with the following observations given as under: – “16. It is important at this stage to refer to the genesis of these three legislations. Each of them deals with different aspects of recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. Two of them refer to creditors’ interests and how best to deal with recovery of outstanding loans and advances made by them on the one hand, whereas the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, on the other hand, deals with certain debtors which are sick industrial companies [i.e. companies running industries named in the Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951] and whether such “debtors” having become “sick”, are to be rehabilitated. The question, therefore, is whether the public interest in recovering debts due to banks and financial institutions is to give way to the public interest in rehabilitation of sick industrial companies, regard being had to the present economic scenario in the country, as reflected in parliamentary legislation. xxx xxx xxx 19. While this Act had worked for a period of about 7 years, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was brought into force, pursuant to various committee reports. […] 20. The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 took away the jurisdiction of the courts and vested this jurisdiction in tribunals established by the Act so as to ensure speedy recovery of debts due to the banks and financial institutions mentioned therein. This Act also included one appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and transfer of all suits or other proceedings pending before any court to tribunals set up under the Act. The Act contained a non obstante clause in Section 34 stating that its provisions will have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any other law. In the year 2000, this Act was amended so as to incorporate a new sub-section (2) in Section 34 together with a saving provision in sub-section (1). It is of some interest to note that this Act was to be in addition to and not in derogation of various Financial Corporation Acts and the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Clearly, therefore, the object of the 2000 Amendment to the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was to make the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 prevail over it. 21. Regard being had to the poor working of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was brought into force in the year 2002. […] 22. This 2002 Act was brought into force as a result of two committee reports which opined that recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions was not moving as speedily as expected, and that, therefore, certain other measures would have to be put in place in order that these banks and financial institutions would better be able to recover debts owing to them. xxx xxx xxx 24. The “pivotal” provision, namely, Section 13 of the said Act makes it clear that banks and financial institutions would now no longer have to wait for a tribunal judgment under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to be able to recover debts owing to them. They could, by following the procedure laid down in Section 13, take direct action against the debtors by taking possession of secured assets and selling them; they could also take over the management of the business of the borrower. They could also appoint any person to manage the secured assets possession of which has been taken over by them, and could require, at any time by notice in writing to any person who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due or may become due from the borrower, to pay the secured creditor so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt. 25. In order to further the objects of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Act contains a non obstante clause in Section 35 and also contains various Acts in Section 37 which are to be in addition to and not in derogation of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Three of these Acts, namely, the Companies Act, 1956, the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, relate to securities generally, whereas the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 relates to recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. Significantly, under Section 41 of this Act, three Acts are, by the Schedule to this Act, amended. We are concerned with the third of such Acts, namely, the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, in Section 15(1) of which two provisos have been added. It is the correct interpretation of the second of these provisos on which the fate of these appeals ultimately hangs.” (Emphasis supplied) 52. Furthermore, Madras Petrochem (supra) made one another pertinent observation that Section(s) 35 and 37 respectively of the SARFAESI Act form a unique scheme of overriding provisions, however the scope and ambit of Section 37 is restricted only to the securities law. The relevant portion is reproduced as under: – “39. This is what then brings us to the doctrine of harmonious construction, which is one of the paramount doctrines that is applied in interpreting all statutes. Since neither Section 35 nor Section 37 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is subject to the other, we think it is necessary to interpret the expression “or any other law for the time being in force” in Section 37. If a literal meaning is given to the said expression, Section 35 will become completely otiose as all other laws will then be in addition to and not in derogation of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Obviously this could not have been the parliamentary intendment, after providing in Section 35 that the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 will prevail over all other laws that are inconsistent therewith. A middle ground has, therefore, necessarily to be taken. According to us, the two apparently conflicting sections can best be harmonised by giving meaning to both. This can only be done by limiting the scope of the expression “or any other law for the time being in force” contained in Section 37. This expression will, therefore, have to be held to mean other laws having relation to the securities market only, as the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is the only other special law, apart from the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, dealing with recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. On this interpretation also, the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 will not be included for the obvious reason that its primary objective is to rehabilitate sick industrial companies and not to deal with the securities market.” (Emphasis supplied) 53. In interpreting the various provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the SARFAESI Rules framed thereunder, one must be mindful of the observations made by this Court in Mardia Chemical (supra), which are significant. This Court in Mardia Chemical (supra) observed that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act & SARFAESI Rules must be interpreted keeping in mind the economic object which is sought to be achieved by the legislature, the relevant observations read as under: – “34. Some facts which need to be taken note of are that the banks and the financial institutions have heavily financed the petitioners and other industries. It is also a fact that a large sum of amount remains unrecovered. Normal process of recovery of debts through courts is lengthy and time taken is not suited for recovery of such dues. For financial assistance rendered to the industries by the financial institutions, financial liquidity is essential failing which there is a blockade of large sums of amounts creating circumstances which retard the economic progress followed by a large number of other consequential ill effects. Considering all these circumstances, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act was enacted in 1993 but as the figures show it also did not bring the desired results. Though it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it so happened due to inaction on the part of the Governments in creating Debts Recovery Tribunals and appointing presiding officers, for a long time. Even after leaving that margin, it is to be noted that things in the spheres concerned are desired to move faster. In the present day global economy it may be difficult to stick to old and conventional methods of financing and recovery of dues. Hence, in our view, it cannot be said that a step taken towards securitisation of the debts and to evolve means for faster recovery of NPAs was not called for or that it was superimposition of undesired law since one legislation was already operating in the field, namely, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. It is also to be noted that the idea has not erupted abruptly to resort to such a legislation. It appears that a thought was given to the problems and the Narasimham Committee was constituted which recommended for such a legislation keeping in view the changing times and economic situation whereafter yet another Expert Committee was constituted, then alone the impugned law was enacted. Liquidity of finances and flow of money is essential for any healthy and growth-oriented economy. But certainly, what must be kept in mind is that the law should not be in derogation of the rights which are guaranteed to the people under the Constitution. The procedure should also be fair, reasonable and valid, though it may vary looking to the different situations needed to be tackled and object sought to be achieved.” (Emphasis supplied) B. Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act and the Decision of this Court in Bafna Motors. 54. In the present lis, we are concerned with sub-section 8 of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act referred to above. At the cost of repetition, the relevant portion of the said provision is reproduced below for convenience: – “13. Enforcement of security interest.– (8) Where the amount of dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by him is tendered to the secured creditor at any time before the date of publication of notice for public auction or inviting quotations or tender from public or private treaty for transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale of the secured assets,- (i) the secured assets shall not be transferred by way of lease assignment or sale by the secured creditor; and (ii) in case, any step has been taken by the secured creditor for transfer by way of lease or assignment or sale of the assets before tendering of such amount under this sub-section, no further step shall be taken by such secured creditor for transfer by way of lease or assignment or sale of such secured assets. (Emphasis supplied) 55. A plaint reading of Section 13 sub-section (8) of the SARFAESI Act reveals that the said provision is in two parts, being as under: – (i) First, it enables the borrower to exercise his right of redemption upto a particular point of time by stipulating the time limit during which the borrower can tender all the dues with interest, costs and charges to the secured creditor; (ii) Secondly, it enables the secured creditor to exercise its power to deal or dispose of the secured asset, by providing as to when the secured creditor can proceed to sell, auction, assign or lease the secured asset. 56. The entire impugned judgment of the High Court is based on the decision of this Court in Mathew Varghese (supra). Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, prior to its amendment by Act 44 of 2016 (for short, the “2016 Amendment”), stipulated that, if the dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by him are tendered to the secured creditor at any time before the date fixed for sale or transfer, the secured asset shall not be sold or transferred by the secured creditor, and no further steps shall be taken by him for transfer or sale of that secured asset. 57. In the said decision of this Court, while construing the scope of the pre-amended Section 13 sub-section (8) of the SARFAESI Act, it was observed that any sale or transfer of a secured asset cannot take place without duly informing the borrower of the time and date of such sale or transfer, in order to enable the borrower to tender the dues of the secured creditor with all costs, charges and expenses; the ersthilw provision of Section 13(8), as it stood prior to the 2016 Amendment, clearly stipulates that the borrower retains his full right to redeem the property by tendering all the dues to the secured creditor, at any time before the date fixed for sale or transfer; and the right of redemption, conferred under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, is to repay the entire debt due to the secured creditor. 58. The words “if the dues of the secured creditor”, used in Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, would only mean the dues in its entirety, and not the price fetched on the sale of one of the secured assets in a public auction. The words “that secured asset” in Section 13(8) is preceded by the words “transfer or sale”, and even in case one of the secured assets is brought to sale, the borrower is obligated to repay the entire dues of the secured creditor together with costs, charges and expenses before the date fixed for sale or transfer, to prevent the secured creditor from either selling or transferring, or from taking further steps for the transfer or sale of, that secured asset. 59. We may look into paragraphs 40 and 41 respectively of the judgment in Mathew Varghese (supra) which read as under: “40. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India. In para 54, while dealing with the contention raised on behalf of the secured creditor that the right of redemption would be available to the mortgagor only if the amount due according to the secured creditor is deposited, this Court held as under: “54. …Shri Sibal, however, submits that it is the amount due according to the secured creditor which shall have to be deposited to redeem the property. May be so, some difference regarding the amount due may be there but it cannot be said that right of redemption of property is completely lost. In cases where no such dispute is there, the right can be exercised and in othe

by Sekar Reporter · September 23, 2025