JUDGMENT By the Court.—The first respondent had extended credit facility to a borrower by the name of M/s. Ram Charan Edibles. The borrower committed a default in the payment of the outstanding dues. Following this, the bank took recourse to the measures under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Act. 2. The bank took physical possession of certain immovable properties which were mortgaged in its favour which are described in the sale certificate that was eventually issued in favour of the petitioner, who is the auction purchaser, as follow: “Land & Building Arazi No. 316, MI 1 Biswa 11-12 Dhoor Mauza Sonkhari, Gopiganj Tehsil -Gyanpur, Sale deed 2764 dt. 11.8.79; Boundary-Kanhaiyalal Ke Bedari Ke uttar me. Land & Building Arazi No. 316, MI 1 Biswa 11-12 Dhoor; Mauza Sonkhari, Gopiganj Tehsil -Gyanpur, Sale deed 2762 dt. 11.7.79. Boundary Kishan Lal ke Bedari ke uttar me. Land & Building Arazi No. 316, MI 1 Biswa 11-12 Dhoor Mauza Sonkhari, Gopiganj Tehsil -Gyanpur, sale deed 2763 dt. 11.7.79. Boundary Sai Mubbaiya Janib South. Plot at Arazi 55 MI 3 Biswa 13.75 Dhoor, Mauza Pure Gulab, Gopiganj, Tehsil Gyanpur Sale Deed 590 dt. 1.1.91 Boundary North-Bag Bedran Majkur, South-Kabristan; East-Land of Bateshwar Prasad; West-Ahata Sukhiya Devi & Bansi Devi, Shai bedaran Majkur ke bagh se sata Hua Janib Dakshin ke taraf hai. Plot Arazi 55 MI 4 Biswa 18.75 Dhoor Mzuza Pure Gulab, Gopiganj Tehsil-Gyanpur sale deed 673 dt. 25.1.91 Boundary-North-Bagh Mahajan Majkur, South Kabristan East-Part of Arazi Majkur’s share West-Land of Kanhaiya Lal etc.” 3. The first respondent issued an auction notice on 13 November 2013 in the newspapers. The petitioner participated in the auction which was held on 13 December 2013 and submitted the highest bid of Rs. 68.10 lacs. The bid was accepted and the petitioner deposited the complete amount payable within the time stipulated which was duly accepted by the bank. A sale certificate was issued by the bank in favour of the petitioner on 31 December 2013 recording the sale of the properties described earlier, free from all encumbrances known to the secured creditor. In pursuance of the sale certificate, a sale deed was executed by the bank in favour of the petitioner on 21 May 2014. The sale deed has been registered. In pursuance of the sale certificate, a sale deed was executed by the bank in favour of the petitioner on 21 May 2014. The sale deed has been registered. On 22 May 2014, a joint possession memo was executed by the petitioner and the representatives of the bank which recorded that the petitioner had taken possession of certain movable property which would remain in his custody subject to the directions of the bank. 4. The case of the petitioner is that on 26 May 2014, the sixth to eighth respondents, who were mortgagors of the immovable property, entered upon the premises and damaged the movable property lying therein. The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Magistrate, Sant Ravi Das Nagar on 27 May 2014. The District Magistrate by his endorsement on the complaint directed the Station House Officer, Gopiganj to inspect the premises. The petitioner has stated that the auction sale has not been challenged before any Court of competent jurisdiction by the borrowers who had mortgaged the property. According to the petitioner, it is the duty of the bank to handover the physical possession of the property without any let or hindrance by the borrowers and though the petitioner had approached the bank on several occasions, it has neither ensured vacant possession nor has it taken over custody of the movables which are lying in the premises. The bank, it has been submitted, had taken over the physical possession of the property on 28 December 2012 pursuant to the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act and it was incumbent on it, while handing over physical possession, to ensure that the movables are removed, otherwise the petitioner apprehends that he may be held accountable by the borrowers in the event that any of the movable articles which are still in the premises are found to have been damaged or removed. 5. Notice was issued by this Court to respondent Nos. 6 to 8 on 28 August 2014 and private service was permitted in addition. The petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that the borrowers had declined to accept service. On 3 September, the Registry had also remitted a registered postal packet to the private respondents intimating that the case would be heard on 11 September 2014. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the bank. The petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that the borrowers had declined to accept service. On 3 September, the Registry had also remitted a registered postal packet to the private respondents intimating that the case would be heard on 11 September 2014. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the bank. The bank has stated that the property was sold on ‘as is where is’ basis to the petitioner and possession was handed over to the petitioner. Hence, according to the bank, after the execution of the sale certificate, the charge over the property is that of the auction purchaser. The bank has not disputed in its counter the statement of the petitioner to the effect that the movables of the borrowers were lying in the premises and that under the possession memo, the petitioner was directed to hold the movables subject to the directions of the bank. The averments contained in paragraph 10 of the petition have not been specifically dealt with save and except to observe that the bank had handed over the possession of the property to the petitioner. 7. The bank in the present case had taken action as a secured creditor by invoking the measures under Section 13(4) of the Act and had proceeded to sell the property. The petitioner admittedly is the auction purchaser whose bid at the auction was the highest bid and was duly accepted. Full consideration has been paid by the petitioner. A sale certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner which specifically states that the sale of the property is free from all encumbrances. 8. Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the Rules requires the secured creditor to furnish a public notice, where the secured asset is being sold by inviting tenders or by holding a public auction, inter alia containing the description of the property, including the details of the encumbrances known to the secured creditor, the secured debt, the reserve price, the time and place of auction, the requirement of deposit of earnest money and any other thing which the authorised officer considers it material for a purchaser to know in order to judge the nature and value of the property. Rule 9(9) of the Rules stipulates that the authorised officer shall deliver the property to the purchaser free from all encumbrances known to the secured creditor on deposit of money specified in sub-rule (7). 9. In the present case, there are no encumbrances as such in the property. The only issue pertains to the movables of the borrowers which are lying in the premises. The bank had utilised the provisions of Section 14 of the Act for obtaining the possession of the property from the District Magistrate. However, the joint possession memo indicates that the petitioner was required to hold the movables subject to the directions of the bank. This situation cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely and at the highest was a pro tem measure so as to enable the bank to take necessary steps to handover the movables to the borrowers or if the bank was claiming lien therein, to hold its contractual right on the property thereon. The right of the auction purchaser of obtaining vacant possession cannot be allowed to be defeated in this manner for the failure of the bank to make necessary arrangements or inventorise the movables and thereafter dispose of the movables in accordance with law. If the movables continue to be the property of the borrowers, the bank has to take necessary steps to issue a notice to the borrowers for the removal of the movables. This having not been done, though the sale certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner as far back as on 31 December 2013 followed by the sale deed on 21 May 2014, it is necessary for the Court to issue appropriate directions in that regard. 10. We, accordingly, direct that the bank shall within a period of two weeks of the receipt of a certified copy of this order, take necessary steps to move the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act with a view to ensure that vacant possession of the secured asset is given to the petitioner, who admittedly is the auction purchaser. The District Magistrate shall dispose of the application in accordance with law expeditiously and within a period of one month of the receipt of the application. The District Magistrate shall appoint a date of which notice shall be given to the bank for making an inventory of the movables lying in the premises. The District Magistrate shall dispose of the application in accordance with law expeditiously and within a period of one month of the receipt of the application. The District Magistrate shall appoint a date of which notice shall be given to the bank for making an inventory of the movables lying in the premises. If the bank has no lien or charge in respect of the movables lying in the premises, a notice shall be given to the borrowers by the District Magistrate for the removal of the movables and for which purpose a due and proper inventory shall be made on the date so appointed. If the borrowers fail to remain present on the date appointed for making the inventory, the bank shall take necessary steps in accordance with law immediately thereafter, and without any delay make an inventory jointly with a representative of the District Magistrate with a view to enable the petitioner to be placed in vacant possession of the premises. The bank shall thereafter be at liberty to deal with the movables in accordance with law. The cost, charges and expenses in connection therewith shall be borne by the bank. 11. The petition is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. —————