JUDGMENT : S.G. Pandit, J. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2017 in RA(SA) No.151 of 2011 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai by which the order dated 23.01.2009 in ASA No.232 of 2008 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru, is set aside. 2. The petitioner claims that he is the owner in possession of the property bearing site No.220, Khatha No.189/188/220 at Coffee Board Layout, Hebbal Kempapura Village of Byatarayanapura CMC, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru, measuring 40 x 30 feet (for short 'the schedule property'). The 2nd respondent - M/s. Arihant Sarees had availed financial assistance from the 1st respondent - Indian Bank. It is stated that the schedule property was offered as collateral security for the financial assistance granted to respondent No.2 by respondent No.1. The 2nd respondent failed to repay the financial assistance taken which resulted in initiating recovery proceedings by the 1st respondent - Indian Bank. It is stated that the 1st respondent - Indian Bank initiated recovery action under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the 'SARFAESI Act'). The Bank had issued sale certificate dated 30.11.2007, which was registered on 26.12.2007 in respect of the schedule property. It is the claim of the petitioner that no notice from the 1st respondent - Indian Bank either under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act or possession notice was issued to the petitioner herein. When it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the schedule property has been sold, he challenged the same before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short 'the DRT') in ASA No.232 of 2008. The petitioner states that physical possession of the property is with the petitioner and Bank has not taken possession of the schedule property. It is also stated that the petitioner filed a private complaint in PCR No.21735 of 2006 before the 4th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, against respondent Nos.1, 3 and other three persons, on the ground that they have played fraud in obtaining the property as collateral security for the loan availed by 2nd respondent. It is stated that the value of the property is more than Rs.40,00,000/- and sale has been conducted for a sum of Rs.24,59,000/-. It is stated that the value of the property is more than Rs.40,00,000/- and sale has been conducted for a sum of Rs.24,59,000/-. It is stated that the sale has taken place in total violation of the Securitization Rules 2002, 30 days sale notice as required under the Rules, has not been issued. Therefore, the entire procedure is vitiated. While accepting the property as collateral security, the Bank has not followed proper procedures. The DRT by its order dated 23.01.2009 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner in ASA No.232 OF 2008 holding that the second publication of sale notice issued by the Bank is without giving 30 days time and was of the view, that there is violation of Rule 8 of the Securitisation Rules. Aggrieved by the same the 1st respondent - Indian Bank filed appeal before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, (for short 'the DRAT') in RA(SA) 151 of 2011. The DRAT by its order dated 11.04.2017 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the DRT dated 23.01.2009 and affirmed the sale dated 31.07.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned DRAT committed an error in allowing the appeal and in affirming the sale dated 31.07.2007. The learned DRT had rightly allowed the appeal and had set aside the sale conducted on 31.07.2007 holding that the sale is in contravention of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short 'the Rules'). It is stated that the action of the 1st respondent - Indian Bank is in total contravention of Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules, wherein no sale shall take place before the expiry of 30 days from the date on which sale notice is published. It is contended that the sale notice was published in the News Paper on 16.07.2007, last date for submitting tenders was 30.07.2007 and opening of the tender was on 31.07.2007. The sale of schedule property had taken place on 31.07.2007 itself, by issuance of sale certificate. Therefore, it is contended that the sale had taken place even before expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of sale notice. The sale of schedule property had taken place on 31.07.2007 itself, by issuance of sale certificate. Therefore, it is contended that the sale had taken place even before expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of sale notice. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MATHEW VARGHESE Vs. M. AMRITHA KUMAR AND OTHERS, (2014) 5 SCC 610 . Further it is contended that no proper valuation report is obtained by the Bank before putting the schedule property for sale. The Bank has also not issued mandatory notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent- Bank would submit that the sale had taken place on 31.07.2007 and the sale is confirmed in favour of the 4th respondent, who was the highest bidder. It is contended that earlier sale notice was issued on 08.06.2007 fixing the date of sale as 09.07.2007, but due to unforeseen circumstances 09.07.2007 was declared as public holiday, which necessitated the 1st respondent-Bank to issue fresh sale notice on 16.07.2007. Therefore, it is contended that it is not open for the petitioner to say that there was no 30 days notice of sale. 6. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent would contend that he is a bonafide purchaser of the schedule property in the auction sale conducted on 31.07.2007 for a sale consideration of Rs.24,59.000/-. Thereafter, sale certificate was issued on 30.11.2007. Katha has been issued in his name and he is paying the property tax to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short 'the BBMP'). The 4th respondent has acquired absolute right, title and interest in respect of the schedule property. It is his contention that there was clear notice of 30 days for the first sale. The first sale notice was issued on 08.06.2007 fixing the date of sale as 09.07.2007. As 09.07.2007 was declared as a holiday, the Bank had to publish fresh sale notice, which was published on 16.07.2007. Sale notice is dated 14.07.2007 but was published in the News Paper on 16.07.2007. The sale has taken place on 31.07.2007. The first sale notice was issued on 08.06.2007 fixing the date of sale as 09.07.2007. As 09.07.2007 was declared as a holiday, the Bank had to publish fresh sale notice, which was published on 16.07.2007. Sale notice is dated 14.07.2007 but was published in the News Paper on 16.07.2007. The sale has taken place on 31.07.2007. The learned counsel invites attention of this Court to Rule 9(1) proviso and contends that 30 days sale notice is required only in the first instance and when the property is brought to sale again, only 15 days notice is sufficient. It is his contention that even though as on the date of sale, 30 days notice was required, subsequently in the year 2016 proviso is substituted reducing the sale notice period to 15 days when the sale takes place on the second occasion onwards. As it is amendment by way of substitution, the same would operate retrospectively. Hence, he justifies the order of the DRAT. 7. On hearing learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the writ papers, we are of the view, that the order of the DRAT requires appropriate interference by this Court. The only contention which requires to be examined in this writ petition is as to whether the sale of the schedule property by the 1st respondent-Bank is in contravention of Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules. Rule 8 of the Rules provides for sale of immovable secured assets. Rule 9 provides for time of sale, issues of sale certificate and delivery of possession etc. Rule 9(1) which stood prior to 2016 amendment and as on the date of sale reads as follows :- "9. Time of sale, issues of sale certificate and delivery of possession, etc.- (1) No sale of immovable property under these rules 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) or notice of sale has been served to the borrower." The above rule came to be amended by 2016 amendment, which came into effect from 04.11.2016. Amended Rule 9(1) and the proviso reads as follows :- "9. Amended Rule 9(1) and the proviso reads as follows :- "9. Time of sale, issues 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.] 8. Prior to 2016, Rule 9(1) of the Rules would state that no sale of immovable property shall take place before the expiry of 30 days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in News Papers. This was the Rule existing as on the date of impugned sale dated 31.07.2007. Subsequently by 2016 amendment proviso to Rule 9(1) is added which would state "that if sale of immovable property fails and if sale is required to be conducted again, the authorized officer shall serve, affix and publish notice of sale of not less than 15 days to the borrower, for any subsequent sale". 9. Admittedly, in the case on hand, initially sale notice was published on 08.06.2007 fixing the date of sale as 09.07.2007. Due to unforeseen circumstances 09.07.2007 was declared as a holiday and no sale has taken place on that day. The 1st respondent - Indian Bank had to issue fresh sale notification on 14.07.2007 which was published in the News Paper on 16.07.2007. The last date for submission of tenders was 30.07.2007 and opening of the tenders was on 31.07.2007. The sale has taken place on 31.07.2007. Admittedly there was no 30 days clear notice of sale as required under Rule 9(1) of the Rules as it stood on the date of sale. The requirement of 30 days notice under Rule 9(1) as on the date of sale was mandatory and there was no escape from the mandatory Rules for the 1st respondent - Indian Bank. Admittedly there was no 30 days clear notice of sale as required under Rule 9(1) of the Rules as it stood on the date of sale. The requirement of 30 days notice under Rule 9(1) as on the date of sale was mandatory and there was no escape from the mandatory Rules for the 1st respondent - Indian Bank. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra wherein postponement of sale and bringing the property for sale again, has held at paragraphs 31 to 33 and 53 as follows :- "31. Once the said legal position is ascertained, the statutory prescription contained in Rules 8 and 9 have also got to be examined as the said Rules prescribe as to the procedure to be followed by a secured creditor while resorting to a sale after the issuance of the proceedings under Sections 13(1) to (4) of the SARFAESI Act. Under Rule 9(1), it is prescribed that no sale of an immovable property under the Rules should take place before the expiry of 30 days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in the newspapers as referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 or notice of sale has been served to the borrower. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 again states that the authorized officer should serve to the borrower a notice of 30 days for the sale of the immovable secured assets. Reading sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 and sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 together, the service of individual notice to the borrower, specifying clear 30 days' time-gap for effecting any sale of immovable secured asset is a statutory mandate. It is also stipulated that no sale should be affected before the expiry of 30 days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in the newspapers. Therefore, the requirement under Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1) contemplates a clear 30 days' individual notice to the borrower and also a public notice by way of publication in the newspapers. Therefore, the requirement under Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1) contemplates a clear 30 days' individual notice to the borrower and also a public notice by way of publication in the newspapers. In other words, while the publication in newspapers should provide for 30 days' clear notice, since Rule 9(1) also states that such notice of sale is to be in accordance with the proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 8, 30 days' clear notice to the borrower should also be ensured as stipulated under Rule 8(6) as well. Therefore, the use of the expression "or" in Rule 9(1) should be read as "and" as that alone would be in consonance with Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act." 32. The other prescriptions contained in the proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 relates to the details to be set out in the newspaper publication, one of which should be in "vernacular language" with sufficient circulation in the locality by setting out the terms of the sale. While setting out the terms of the sale, it should contain the description of the immovable property to be sold, the known encumbrances of the secured creditor, the secured debt for which the property is to be sold, the reserve price below which the sale cannot be effected, the time and place of public auction or the time after which sale by any other mode would be completed, the deposit of earnest money to be made and any other details which the authorized officer considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge the nature and value of the property. 33. Such a detailed procedure while resorting to a sale of an immovable secured asset is prescribed under Rules 8 and 9(1). In our considered opinion, it has got a twin objective to be achieved: 33.1. In the first place, as already stated by us, by virtue of the stipulation contained in Section 13(8) read along with Rules 8(6) and 9(1), the owner/borrower should have clear notice of 30 days before the date and time when the sale or transfer of the secured asset would be made, as that alone would enable the owner/borrower to take all efforts to retain his or her ownership by tendering the dues of the secured creditor before that date and time. 33.2. 33.2. Secondly, when such a secured asset of an immovable property is brought for sale, the intending purchasers should know the nature of the property, the extent of liability pertaining to the said property, any other encumbrances pertaining to the said property, the minimum price below which one cannot make a bid and the total liability of the borrower to the secured creditor. Since, the proviso to sub-rule (6) also mentions that any other material aspect should also be made known when effecting the publication, it would only mean that the intending purchaser should have entire details about the property brought for sale in order to rule out any possibility of the bidders later on to express ignorance about the factors connected with the asset in question. 33.3. Be that as it may, the paramount objective is to provide sufficient time and opportunity to the borrower to take all efforts to safeguard his right of ownership either by tendering the dues to the creditor before the date and time of the sale or transfer, or ensure that the secured asset derives the maximum price and no one is allowed to exploit the vulnerable situation in which the borrower is placed. 34. to 52. XXX .XXX .XXX 53. We, therefore, hold that unless and until a clear 30 days' notice is given to the borrower, no sale or transfer can be resorted to by a secured creditor. In the event of any such sale properly notified after giving 30 days' clear notice to the borrower did not take place as scheduled for reasons which cannot be solely attributable to the borrower, the secured creditor cannot effect the sale or transfer of the secured asset on any subsequent date by relying upon the notification issued earlier. In other words, once the sale does not take place pursuant to a notice issued under Rules 8 and 9, read along with Section 13(8) for which the entire blame cannot be thrown on the borrower, it is imperative that for effecting the sale, the procedure prescribed above will have to be followed afresh, as the notice issued earlier would lapse. In that respect, the only other provision to be noted is sub-rule (8) of Rule 8 as per which sale by any method other than public auction or public tender can be on such terms as may be settled between the parties in writing. In that respect, the only other provision to be noted is sub-rule (8) of Rule 8 as per which sale by any method other than public auction or public tender can be on such terms as may be settled between the parties in writing. As far as sub-rule (8) is concerned, the parties referred to can only relate to the secured creditor and the borrower. It is, therefore, imperative that for the sale to be effected under Section 13(8), the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 read along with Rule 9(1) has to be necessarily followed, inasmuch as that is the prescription of the law for effecting the sale as has been explained in detail by us in the earlier paragraphs by referring to Sections 13(1), 13(8) and 37, read along with Section 29 and Rule 15. In our considered view any other construction will be doing violence to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, in particular Sections 13(1) and (8) of the said Act. 10. The above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court would make it clear that unless and until 30 days clear notice is given to the borrower, no sale could take place. Even when the property is brought to sale on the second occasion prescribed procedure will have to be followed afresh. Hence, we are of the view, that the DRT by its order dated 23.01.2009 had rightly allowed the appeal and held that the sale proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent - Indian Bank are not in terms of the provisions laid down under law. The DRAT committed an error in setting aside the order of the DRT. 11. The contention of the 4th respondent that Rule 9(1) is amended by way of substitution in the year 2016 and as per the amended Rules 15 days clear notice is sufficient if the property is brought to sale on the second occasion. In the instant case, as the sale is on the second occasion, he contends that there was 15 days clear notice and the 1st respondent - Indian Bank had rightly issued the sale certificate. 12. Even though the Rule is amended by way of substitution in the year 2016, it would have no application to the facts of the present case. The sale has taken place in the year 2007 and the law as stood on the date of sale is to be looked into. 12. Even though the Rule is amended by way of substitution in the year 2016, it would have no application to the facts of the present case. The sale has taken place in the year 2007 and the law as stood on the date of sale is to be looked into. The amendment made is to procedural law and not to substantive law. When the amendment is brought into procedural law, it would always be prospective. In the case on hand, as on the date of sale 30 days clear notice was mandatory and as such the contention of 4th respondent is liable to be rejected. Even assuming that as the amended Rule would apply 15 days notice is sufficient, but the sale has not taken place in accordance with the amended Rules. The amended Rules would specify that the sale on the second occasion could take place if the sale notice is of not less than 15 days. Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for short 'the 1857 Act') provides for computation of prescribed time. Section 9(1) of the 1857 Act reads as follows :- "9. Commencement and termination of time - (1) In any 2[Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word "from", and, for the purpose of including the last in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word "to"." From a reading of the above provision it is clear that if a provision prescribes time which commences with the word "from", the first day of period of time prescribed shall be excluded. For calculating 15 clear days time the date of publication is to be excluded. The sale publication was on 16.07.2007. If the date of publication of sale notice is excluded, then there would be no 15 days clear notice of sale. The last date for submitting the tender was 30.07.2007 and as stated, the sale has taken place on 31.07.2007, that is to say, the sale has taken place on the 15th day. Hence, there was no clear 15 days notice of sale. On this ground also the sale is liable to be set aside. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Hence, there was no clear 15 days notice of sale. On this ground also the sale is liable to be set aside. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the DRAT dated 11.04.2017 in RA(SA) 151 OF 2011 is set aside and the order passed by the DRT on 23.01.2009 in ASA No. 232 of 2008 is confirmed.