ORDER : VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. We have heard Shri Masoom K. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mihir Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 Bank of Baroda. 2. Mr. Mihir Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Bank may file his appearance within a week which may be accepted by the Registry and be placed on record. 3. Normally, this petition would have been moved before the learned Single Judge, but as the petitioner has prayed for declaring Rule 9(4) and Rule 9(5) of the Securities Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2020, as ultra vires the Constitution of India and/or Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2020, it has come up before this Court. 4. During hearing of the petition on 24th February, 2020, it came out that the petitioner, who was auction purchaser of a property held on 20th November, 2019 and the same being confirmed on 26th November, 2019, though was ready and willing to pay the entire outstanding amount, but for interpretation of counting the period of three months either from the date of auction or from the date of confirmation of sale, the petitioner was unable to make the deposit and now the Bank is not willing to accept the amount as it has no power to extend the period beyond three months. According to Shri Masoom Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, from the date of auction, the period of three months is already over, however, from the date of confirmation of sale, the petitioner still has 24 hour time, i.e. till today. Accordingly, by order dated 24th February, 2020, we had directed for issuance of notice to the respondent No.1 Bank to be made returnable for today and direct service was permitted. Steps were taken accordingly and today before us Shri Mihir Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Bank is present with instructions. 5. Before dealing with the issue of deciding the cut off date for deposit of amount, we may record certain facts. 6. Plot No. 35 Sr.No. 653/1(35) of Somnath Industrial Cooperative Society, Dabhel, Nani Daman, Daman, admeasuring 800 sq.mts. was put up for auction held by respondent No.1 Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2020 and the Securities Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2020. 6. Plot No. 35 Sr.No. 653/1(35) of Somnath Industrial Cooperative Society, Dabhel, Nani Daman, Daman, admeasuring 800 sq.mts. was put up for auction held by respondent No.1 Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2020 and the Securities Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2020. The auction was held on 20th November, 2019 in which the present petitioner was the highest bidder offering an amount of Rs.1,42,25,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty-Two Lacs Twenty-Five Thousand only). The said auction sale was confirmed on 26th November, 2019. There is no dispute with regard to the above two dates. The petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs. 1,01,56,250/- (Rupees One Crore One Lac Fifty-Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only) and the remaining amount to be deposited is Rs. 40,68,750/- (Rupees Forty Lacs Sixty- Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty only). 7. Another question is that according to learned counsel for the petitioner, 1% TDS of the total amount of auction was to be deducted before making final payment. Said 1% TDS amount is Rs. 1,42,250/- (Rupees One Lac Forty-Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only) is to be deposited with the Income-Tax Department and the balance amount outstanding to the Bank would be Rs. 39,26,500/- (Rupees Thirty- Nine Lacs Twenty-Six Thousand Five Hundred only). 8. We now come to interpretation of Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The same reads as under : "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. (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 9: 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 pay a deposit of twenty-five per cent. of the amount of the sale price, to the authorised officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be sold again. (4) The balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid 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 parties. (5) In default of payment within the period mentioned in sub-rule (4), the deposit shall be forfeited 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 the 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. (8) On such deposit of money for discharge of the encumbrances, the authorised officer may 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." 9. A perusal of the above Rule stipulates that balance amount of purchase price payable is to be paid by the purchaser to the Authorized Officer on or before fifteenth day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property. The second part of the said rule provides that the said period could be extended as may be agreed in writing between the purchaser and the Secured Creditor, but in any case not exceeding three months. 10. The question is whether period of three months is to be counted from the date of auction or from the date of confirmation of sale. Rule does not refer to any other date from which the period of three months is to be counted. It mentions the date of confirmation of sale for counting the period of 15 days. However, the second part provides that it is only if agreed between the purchaser and Secured Creditor in writing that the period of deposit could be extended up to three months. The plain and simple interpretation confining to the date mentioned in the rule would only mean three months from the date of confirmation of sale and not from the date of auction. Even other provisions of Rule 9 nowhere give any other interpretation or any other reference which may lead to the inference that period of three months is to be counted from the date of auction. Thus, we are unable to sustain the argument of Shri Mihir Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Bank that the period of three months could be counted from the date of auction and not from the date of confirmation of sale. 11. Thus, we are unable to sustain the argument of Shri Mihir Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Bank that the period of three months could be counted from the date of auction and not from the date of confirmation of sale. 11. Shri Pathak has also drawn our attention to the communication made by the petitioner and its reply given by the Bank in which it has been stated that the period of deposit could be extended only up to 17th February, 2020. The said communication of the respondent No.1 Bank dated 2nd December, 2019 was in response to a request of the petitioner dated 30th November, 2019 seeking extension of time for payment of the balance amount. The time was accordingly extended by the Bank up to 17th February, 2020. This appears to be for the reason that the Bank considered the period of extension of three months as provided in Rule 9(4) of the 2002 Rules from the date of auction and that too the Bank counted 90 days and not three months. The view taken by the Bank does not appear to be correct, firstly for the reason that the period of three months was to be counted and secondly it was to be counted from the date of confirmation of sale and not from the date of auction. Even if the petitioner had made a request to extend the time till 17th February, 2020, the statutory provision allowed the extension for a period of three months from the date of confirmation of sale and not 90 days. On both the counts, the calculation made by the Bank and may be, by the petitioner was not correct. What is relevant is that the Bank had exercised its discretion to agree to the extended period permissible under second part of Rule 9(4) of the 2002 Rules. 12. Since we have made plain interpretation of Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the time to deposit would be till today. The petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the entire amount today itself and also deposit 1% TDS with the Income-Tax Department and provide its deposit slip to the Bank at the earliest. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us Account Payee cheque bearing 001081 dated 25.02.2020 drawn on HDFC Bank favouring Regional Stress Asset Recovery/Account No. 174040000289 for an amount of Rs. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us Account Payee cheque bearing 001081 dated 25.02.2020 drawn on HDFC Bank favouring Regional Stress Asset Recovery/Account No. 174040000289 for an amount of Rs. 39,26,500/- (Rupees Thirty-Nine Lacs Twenty-Six Thousand Five Hundred only). The petitioner is permitted to deposit the said cheque today itself in the account of Bank of Baroda and request the HDFC Bank to clear this amount today itself and credit the same in the account of the Bank of Baroda provided that there are sufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. 14. A copy of this order may be communicated to the HDFC Bank along with the aforesaid request during the course of day. Copy of this cheque may be provided to Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Bank and may also be placed on record. The petitioner further undertakes that in the event there is any difficulty in the said cheque being deposited and the amount being credited in the account of the Bank of Baroda, they would make transaction by way of RTGS or NEFT today itself. 15. We further provide that if the said amount is credited in the account of Bank of Baroda, the same would be accepted by the Bank of Baroda as valid payment within the extended period as provided under Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and accordingly proceed further in accordance to law. 16. With the above direction, this petition stands disposed of. Copy of this order to be provided to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges. Direct service is permitted.