JUDGMENT : S. MANIKUMAR, J. 1. Instant public interest writ petition is filed for the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order, quashing Exhibit-P4 ownership certificate dated 21.08.2020 issued by Nedumangad Municipality to the 5th respondent. (b) Issue a declaration that Exhibit-P4 is null and void, as respondents 1 and 2, viz. The Secretary, Nedumangad Municipality, Thiruvananthapuram and Nedumangad Municipality, represented by its Secretary, have no authority or jurisdiction to issue the same, in view of Exhibits-P2 and P3 notifications dated 26.10.2018 and 23.01.2020 respectively. (c) Issue a further declaration that all consequential and further official acts based on and relying on Exhibit-P4 ownership certificate dated 21.08.2020 are null, void and without any basis. 2. Facts leading to the filing of instant writ petition are that, petitioner, an elected Councillor of Nedumangad Municipality, being interested in clean administration of the Municipality, has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash Exhibit-P4 ownership certificate dated 21.08.2020, issued by the Municipal Secretary of Nedumangad Municipality to the 5th respondent, applicant, who, according to him, has ceased to be owner/occupier of the building in question. 3. Petitioner has further stated that the disputed building is the subject matter of a corporate loan for more than Rs. 50 Crores, granted by the Industrial Financing Corporation of India Ltd. (IFCI), represented by its Managing Director, New Delhi, respondent No. 8, to the 5th respondent, on security. Since the 5th respondent has committed default of the loan amount, with interest, 8th respondent has initiated recovery proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘SARFAESI Act’ for brevity), by taking over possession and ownership of the said building, and has put the same in public auction, by notification in a newspaper. Hence, the 5th respondent has ceased to be, either the owner or the occupier of the said building. 4. Petitioner has further stated that since the sale notification was issued and published by the secured creditor on 07.03.2020, the 5th respondent borrower has lost his opportunity to redeem the same, as stipulated in the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Hence, the 5th respondent has ceased to be, either the owner or the occupier of the said building. 4. Petitioner has further stated that since the sale notification was issued and published by the secured creditor on 07.03.2020, the 5th respondent borrower has lost his opportunity to redeem the same, as stipulated in the SARFAESI Act, 2002. However, despite the above legal position, as covered by the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the 1st respondent has issued Exhibit-P4 ownership certificate to the 5th respondent, for making use of the same to obtain a bar licence, completely overlooking the fact that ownership and possession of the building has been taken over by the 8th respondent irrevocably, in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 5. Petitioner has contended that though the above facts were brought to the notice of the 1st respondent, Secretary of Nedumangad Municipality through Exhibits-P5 and P6 representations dated 06.08.2020 and 24.08.2020 respectively, requesting to cancel the certificate, the same has been ignored by the 1st respondent and there is neither any action nor any response to his complaints. Left with no alternative efficacious remedy, this Writ Petition is filed for quashing Exhibit P4 ownership certificate and the consequential actions on the basis of the same. 6. On the above pleadings, petitioner has contended that the ownership certificate dated 21.08.2020 (Ext-P4) issued by Nedumangad Municipality to the 5th respondent is illegal, unsustainable in the eyes of law, and without jurisdiction, in view of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and, therefore, liable to be quashed. He has further contended that the Secretary of Nedumangad Municipality, respondent No. 1, ought not to have issued the said certificate, in the light of Exhibit-P3 newspaper notification, for sale of the building in dispute. 7. Petitioner has further contended that faced with Exhibits-P2 and P3 notifications, the 5th respondent has ceased to be the owner or occupier of the Indraprastha building and is not entitled to get Exhibit-P4 certificate in respect of the same. By virtue of Exhibits-P2 and P3 notifications under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the 1st respondent is incompetent and has no jurisdiction to issue Exhibit-P4 certificate. 8. By virtue of Exhibits-P2 and P3 notifications under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the 1st respondent is incompetent and has no jurisdiction to issue Exhibit-P4 certificate. 8. Petitioner has further contended that classification, if any, issued by the 4th respondent and the bar licence, if any, to be granted by the 3rd respondent, in respect of Indraprastha building, on the basis of Exhibit-P4 ownership certificate to the 5th respondent would be null and void in the eyes of law. 9. On the above pleadings, inviting our attention to Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s. Transcore vs. Union of India and Another, (2008) 1 SCC 125 , Mr. S. Gopakumaran Nair, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, sought for issuance of notice to the respondents and adjudicate the issues. 10. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 11. Notice dated 23.01.2020 (Exhibit-P2) issued to the 5th respondent by the Authorized Officer of IFCL Limited, 8th respondent, in accordance with Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, is extracted hereunder: “(By Speed Post/By Email) Without Prejudice Ref. No. IFCL/CHERO-Legal/2020-19498 Date: 23.01.2020 A. Abdul Rasheed (Mortgagor & Corporate Guarantor) Heera, Golf Links Road, TKV Nagar, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram. M/s. Concept Reality India Pvt. Ltd. (Mortgagor & Corporate Guarantor) Registered Office: Shop No-28, Building No-3, Seawood Heritage, Plot No-50, Sector-4, Kharghan, Navi, Mumbai, Maharastra-410210. Sh. Chandra Babu, Managing Director, representing M/s. Concept Reality India Pvt. Ltd (Mortgagor & Personal Guarantor) Karthik, Kottathala PO. Kottarakkara Taluk, Kollam District. Smt. Ammukutty George (Mortgagor & Personal Guarantor) Keralasery Veedu, Kizhakkumkara, Vayakkalathumuri, Attipra Village, Thiruvananthapuram District. K.G. Babukuttan (Mortgagor & Personal Guarantor), Keralasery Veedu, Kizhakkumkara, Vayakkalathumuri, Attipra Village, Thiruvananthapuram District. K.G. Cheriyan (Mortgagor & Personal Guarantor) Keralasery Veedu, Kizhakkumkara, Vayakkalathumuri, Attipra Village, Thiruvananthapuram District. Smt. Sunitha Rasheed, (Personal Guarantor) Heera, Golf Links Road, TKV Nagar, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram-695003 Dear Sir/Madam, Sub: Financial assistance sanctioned to M/s. Heera Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. (“HCCPL”) - Notice under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 1. This notice is being issued to you on account of statutory compliance of Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. 2. Please refer to the Demand Notice u/sec. This notice is being issued to you on account of statutory compliance of Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. 2. Please refer to the Demand Notice u/sec. 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 dated 26/10/2018 issued by IFCL Ltd. to Heera Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. IMAGE 12. Newspaper publication dated 07.03.2020 (Exhibit-P3) in the Mathrubhumi daily is extracted hereunder: IMAGE 13. Exhibit-P4 ownership certificate dated 21.08.2020 issued by the respondent Municipality to the 5th respondent is extracted hereunder: “Nedumangad Municipality OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE File No. R2/8567/2020 Date: 21.08.2020 It is hereby certified that Abdul Rashid A. is the owner of building No. 1039 of ward 9 as per the property tax register of this Municipality till the year 2020-21. This certificate is being given on his application for producing in the office of Excise Department. Sd/- Secretary Nedumangad Municipality Abdul Rashid A. Citadel, Golf Link Road, Kavadiyar P.O. (old No. 12/477(7).” 14. Exhibit-P5 representation dated 06.08.2020 submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent is extracted hereunder: “To Secretary, Nedumangadu Municipality, Nedumangadu, Thiruvananthapuram. Sir, Sub:- No. TPI 6981/2018 (TPI) - BA (219112)/2018) - K. Vasudevan, Lakshmi Nivas, Pazhavadi Street, Nedumangang, Nedumangadu P.O. Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695 541- illegal construction Reg: It is submitted that on the basis of the above license, Sri. K. Vasudevan has constructed 6th floor high raise building including basement No. 1 and 2 in Nedumangad Village, ward No. 13, Sy.No. 570/29 & 570/3 violating the following rules and regulations: (1) Fire fighting dry way as required under Rule 117 for the building is not to be seen. (2) Car parking facility as per Rule 34 is not seen. (3) The parking space in basement 1 & 2 does not have the extent as required under law (5.5 x 2.7 meter. This is illegal. (4) The fire escape stair case is not touching the ground as per the Rules. This is illegal. (5) Rain water storage facility waste water treatment plant, land waste disposal facility as required under K.M.B.R is not shown in the plan and has not been constructed. This is in violation of K.M.B.R rules. (6) The set back space in accordance with law as shown in the plan is not seen to be implemented. This is illegal. (5) Rain water storage facility waste water treatment plant, land waste disposal facility as required under K.M.B.R is not shown in the plan and has not been constructed. This is in violation of K.M.B.R rules. (6) The set back space in accordance with law as shown in the plan is not seen to be implemented. Even though the above serious lapses subsist, it is suspected that the owner of the building is hurrying to get the building numbered by all illegal use. It is under these circumstances that I am writing this letter. Kindly intervene in this matter and take necessary steps.” By M.S. Binu Councilor Nedumangad 06.08.2020.” 15. Exhibit-P6 representation dated 24.08.2020 submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent is extracted hereunder: “To Secretary, Nedumangadu Municipality, Nedumangadu, Thiruvananthapuram. Sir Sub:-Ownership Certificate-property of Sri. Abdul Rasheed in Sy. No. 784/36 784/37 and the Indraprastha building in the premises - Eviction notice and auction advertisement regarding: Ref: (1) auction notice advertisement dated 7th March 2020 in Mathrubhumi news paper. (2) ownership certificate dated 20.08.2020 in the name of Abdul Rasheed for the purpose of submitting the same with the Excise Department. It is brought to your notice that the properties of Mr. Abdul Rasheed as mentioned above in Nedumangad Municipality is eviction under proceedings as stated in the first reference the properties are put on public auction and the date of auction on 08.04.2018. As such the ownership certificate is not to be given for the above properties without enquiry of the whereabouts. Nedumangad Municipality cannot contend that it has not seen about the public auction notice or heard about it as it was advertised publicly. In such circumstances this Municipality has to cancel the ownership certificate dated 20.08.2020 for the purpose of submitting the same to the Excise Department. Also the Municipality should intimate the department that the ownership certificate has been cancelled as per reference No. 1 advertisement. On the contra shall consider the same as corruption and take necessary action. 24.08.2020 Thanking you Thiruvananthapuram.” 16. Now, let us consider the statutory provisions. 17. The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is an Act to regulate securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 24.08.2020 Thanking you Thiruvananthapuram.” 16. Now, let us consider the statutory provisions. 17. The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is an Act to regulate securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2(1) (b) of the Act defines “asset reconstruction” to mean acquisition by any securitisation company or reconstruction company of any right or interest of any bank or financial institution in any financial assistance for the purpose of realisation of such financial assistance. 18. Section 2(1)(f) of the Act defines “borrower” as under: “(f) “borrower” means any person who has been granted financial assistance by any bank or financial institution or who has given any guarantee or created any mortgage or pledge as security for the financial assistance granted by any bank or financial institution and includes a person who becomes borrower of a asset reconstruction company consequent upon acquisition by it of any rights or interest of any bank or financial institution in relation to such financial assistance or who has raised funds through issue of debt securities.” 19. Section 2(1)(z) of the Act defines “securitisation” as under: “(z) “securitisation” means acquisition of financial assets by any asset reconstruction company from any originator, whether by raising of funds by such asset reconstruction company from qualified buyers by issue of security receipts representing undivided interest in such financial assets or otherwise.” 20. Section 2(1)(zd) of the Act defines “secured creditor” as under: “(zd) “secured creditor” means:- (i) any bank or financial institution or any consortium or group of banks or financial institutions holding any right, title or interest upon any tangible asset or intangible asset as specified in clause (l). (ii) debenture trustee appointed by any bank or financial institution. (iii) an asset reconstruction company whether acting as such or managing a trust set up by such asset reconstruction company for the securitisation or reconstruction, as the case may be. (iv) debenture trustee registered with the Board appointed by any company for secured debt securities. (v) any other trustee holding securities on behalf of a bank or financial institution, in whose favour security interest is created by any borrower for due repayment of any financial assistance. 21. (iv) debenture trustee registered with the Board appointed by any company for secured debt securities. (v) any other trustee holding securities on behalf of a bank or financial institution, in whose favour security interest is created by any borrower for due repayment of any financial assistance. 21. Section 2(1)(ze) of the Act defines “secured debt” as under: “(ze) “secured debt” means a debt which is secured by any security interest.” 22. Section 2(1)(zf) of the Act defines “security interest” as under: “(zf) “security interest” means right, title or interest of any kind, other than those specified in section 31, upon property created in favour of any secured creditor and includes:- (i) any mortgage, charge, hypothecation, assignment or any right, title or interest of any kind, on tangible asset, retained by the secured creditor as an owner of the property, given on hire or financial lease or conditional sale or under any other contract which secures the obligation to pay any unpaid portion of the purchase price of the asset or an obligation incurred or credit provided to enable the borrower to acquire the tangible asset. (ii) such right, title or interest in any intangible asset or assignment or licence of such intangible asset which secures the obligation to pay any unpaid portion of the purchase price of the intangible asset or the obligation incurred or any credit provided to enable the borrower to acquire the intangible asset or licence of intangible asset.” 23. Chapter III, Section 13 of the Act deals with Enforcement of Security Interest and the same reads thus: “(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. (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 asset transferred as if the transfer had been made by the owner of 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. (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.” 24. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 38 read with sub-sections (4), (10) and (12) of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), the Central Government has framed the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. 25. Rule 3 of the rules speaks about demand notice, as under: “3. Demand notice - (1) The service of demand notice as referred to in sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act shall be made by delivering [including hand delivery] or transmitting at the place where the borrower or his agent, empowered to accept the notice or documents on behalf of the borrower, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, by registered post with acknowledgment due, addressed to the borrower or his agent empowered to accept the service or by Speed Post or by courier or by any other means of transmission of documents like fax message or electronic mail service: Provided that where authorized officer has reason to believe that the borrower or his agent is avoiding the service of the notice or that for any other reason, the service cannot be made as aforesaid, the service shall be effected by affixing a copy of the demand notice on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house or building in which the borrower or his agent ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and also by publishing the contents of the demand notice in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language, having sufficient circulation in that locality. (2) Where the borrower is a body corporate, the demand notice shall be served on the registered office or any of the branches of such body corporate as specified under sub- rule (1). (2) Where the borrower is a body corporate, the demand notice shall be served on the registered office or any of the branches of such body corporate as specified under sub- rule (1). (3) Any other notice in writing to be served on the borrower or his agent by authorized officer, shall be served in the same manner as provided in this rule. (4) Where there are more than one borrower, the demand notice shall be served on each borrower. (5) The demand notice may invite attention of the borrower to provisions of sub-section (8) of section 13 of the Act, in respect of time available to the borrower, to redeem the secured assets.” 26. Rule 3A of the rules speaks about reply to representation of the borrower, and the same reads thus: “(a) After issue of demand notice under sub-section (2) of Section 13, if the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection to the notice, the Authorized Officer shall consider such representation or objection and examine whether the same is acceptable or tenable. (b) If on examining the representation made or objection raised by the borrower, the secured creditor is satisfied that there is a need to make any changes or modifications in the demand notice, he shall modify the notice accordingly and serve a revised notice or pass such other suitable orders as deemed necessary, within [fifteen days] from the date of receipt of the representation or objection. (c) If on examining the representation made or objection raised, the Authorized Officer 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.” 27. (c) If on examining the representation made or objection raised, the Authorized Officer 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.” 27. Rule 4 of the rules speaks about procedure after issue of notice, and the same reads thus: “If the amount mentioned in the demand notice is not paid within the time specified therein, the authorized officer shall proceed to realise the amount by adopting any one or more of the measures specified in sub-section (4) of section 13 of the Act for taking possession of movable property, namely:- (1) Where the possession of the secured assets to be taken by the secured creditor are movable property in possession of the borrower, the authorized officer shall take possession of such movable property in the presence of two witnesses after Panchnama drawn and signed by the witnesses as nearly as possible in Appendix I to these rules. (2) After taking possession under sub-rule (1) above, the authorized officer shall make or cause to be made an inventory of the property as nearly as possible in the form given in Appendix II to these rules and deliver or cause to be delivered, a copy of such inventory to the borrower or to any person entitled to receive on behalf of borrower. (2A) The borrower shall be intimated by a notice, enclosing the panchnama drawn in Appendix I and the inventory made in Appendix II. (2B) All notices under these rules may also be served upon the borrower through electronic mode of service, in addition to the modes specified under rule 3. (3) The authorized officer shall keep the property taken possession under sub-rule (1) either in his own custody or in the custody of any person authorized or appointed by him, who shall take as much care of the property in his custody as owner of ordinary prudence would, under the similar circumstances, take of such property: Provided that if such property is subject to speedy or natural decay, or the expense of keeping such property in custody is likely to exceed its value, the authorized officer may sell it at once. (4) The authorized 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) In case any secured asset is:- (a) a debt not secured by negotiable instrument. (b) a share, in a body corporate. (c) other movable property not in the possession of the borrower except the property deposited in or in the custody of any Court or any like authority, the authorized officer shall obtain possession or recover the debt by service of notice as under:- (i) in the case of a debt, prohibiting the borrower from recovering the debt or any interest thereon and the debtor from making payment thereof and directing the debtor to make such payment to the authorized officer. (ii) in the case of the shares in a body corporate, directing the borrower to transfer the same to the secured creditor and also the body corporate from not transferring such shares in favour of any person other than the secured creditor. A copy of the notice so sent may be endorsed to the concerned body corporate’s Registrar to the issue or share transfer agents, if any. (iii) in the case of other movable property (except as aforesaid), calling upon the borrowers and the person in possession to hand over the same to the authorized officer and the authorized officer shall take custody of such movable property in the same manner as provided in sub-rules (1) to (3) above. (iv) movable secured assets other than those covered in this rule shall be taken possession of by the authorized officer by taking possession of the documents evidencing title to such secured assets.” 28. Rule 5 of the rules speaks about valuation of movable secured assets, and the same reads thus: “After taking possession under sub-rule (1) of rule 4 and in any case before sale, the authorized officer shall obtain the estimated value of the movable secured assets and thereafter, if considered necessary, fix in consultation with the secured creditor, the reserve price of the assets to be sold in realisation of the dues of the secured creditor.” 29. Rule 6 of the rules speaks about sale of movable secured assets and the same reads thus: “(1) The authorized officer may sell the movable secured assets taken possession under sub-rule (1) of rule 4 in one or more lots by adopting any of the following methods to secure maximum sale price for the assets, to be so sold:- (a) obtaining quotations from parties dealing in the secured assets or otherwise interested in buying such assets. (b) inviting tenders from the public. (c) holding public auction including through e-auction mode. (d) by private treaty. (2) The authorized officer shall serve to the borrower a notice of thirty days for sale of the movable secured assets, under sub-rule (1). Provided that if the sale of such secured assets 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 II-A to be published in two leading news papers, including one in vernacular language having wide circulation in the locality. Provided further that if sale of movable property by any one of the methods specified under sub-rule (1) fails and the 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. (3) 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]. (4) The authorised officer shall upload the detailed terms and conditions of the sale of the movable secured assets on the web-site of the secured creditor, which shall include:- (a) details about the borrower and the secured creditor. (b) complete description of movable secured assets to be sold with identification marks or numbers, if any, on them. (c) reserve price of the movable secured assets, if any and the time and manner of payment. (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 or conditions which the authorised officer considers it necessary for a purchaser to know the nature and value of movable secured assets.]” 30. (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 or conditions which the authorised officer considers it necessary for a purchaser to know the nature and value of movable secured assets.]” 30. Rule 7 of the rules speaks about issue of certificate of sale, and the same reads thus: “(1) Where movable secured assets is sold, sale price of each lot shall be paid as per the terms of the public notice or on the terms as may be settled between the parties, as the case may be, and in the event of default of payment, the movable secured assets shall be liable to be offered for sale again. (2) On payment of sale price, the authorized officer shall issue a certificate of sale in the prescribed form as given in Appendix III to these rules specifying the movable secured assets sold, price paid and the name of the purchaser and thereafter the sale shall become absolute. The certificate of sale so issued shall be prima facie evidence of title of the purchaser. (3) Where the movable secured assets are those referred in sub-clauses (iii) to (v) of clause (1) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the [Act], the provisions contained in these rules and rule 7 dealing with the sale of movable secured assets shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to such assets.” 31. Rule 8 of the rules speaks about sale of immovable secured assets, and the same reads thus: “(1) Where the secured asset is an immovable property, the authorized 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 in two leading newspaper, one in vernacular language having sufficient circulation in that locality, by the authorized 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. (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 authorized officer, such property shall be kept in his own custody or in the custody of any person authorized 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 authorized 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 authorized 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. (b) by inviting tenders from the public. (c) by holding public auction including through e-auction mode. (d) by private treaty. (6) the authorized 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. (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 authorized 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.” 32. Rule 9 of the rules speaks about time of sale, issues of sale certificate and delivery of possession etc., and the same reads thus: “(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 authorized 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 authorized 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 authorized 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 authorized officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall be sold again. (4) The balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorized 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 authorized 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 authorized 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. (8) On such deposit of money for discharge of the encumbrances, the authorized 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 authorized 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. (9) The authorized 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.” 33. Now, let us consider the objects and reasons of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, which are extracted hereunder: “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 a 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 securitisition and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 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 securitisition 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 non-performing assets by adopting measures for recovery or reconstruction.” 34. In Transcore vs. Union of India (cited supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court explained what is securitisation, reasons for enactment of NPA Act, 2002 and how security interest is enforced, as under: “What is Securitisation? 7. Securitisation of credit exposures of Banks and Credit Institutions involves a transfer of outstanding balances in Loans/Advances and packaging into transferable and tradable securities. Mr. Joel Telpner has succinctly defined securitisation as under: “Securitisation is a financing tool. It involves creating, combining and recombining of assets and securities.” Basel Accord II has considered securitisation in a broader perspective saying: “A Traditional Securitisation is a structure where the cash flow from an underlying pool of exposures is used to service at least two different stratified risk positions or trenches reflecting different degrees of credit risk. Payments to the investors depend upon the performance of the specified underlying exposures, as opposed to being derived from an obligation of the entity originating those exposures.” In the context of securitisation of Standard Assets, Reserve Bank of India has defined securitisation as “a process by which a single performing asset or a pool of performing assets are sold.” Reasons for Enactment of the NPA Act, 2002: 8. The NPA Act, 2002 is enacted to regulate securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest and for matters connected therewith. The NPA Act enables the banks and FI to realise long-term assets, manage problems of liquidity, asset liability mis- match and to improve recovery of debts by exercising powers to take possession of securities, sell them and thereby reduce non- performing assets by adopting measures for recovery and reconstruction. The NPA Act further provides for setting up of asset reconstruction companies which are empowered to take possession of secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale. The NPA Act further provides for setting up of asset reconstruction companies which are empowered to take possession of secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale. The said Act also empowers the said asset reconstruction companies to take over the management of the business of the borrower. The constitutional validity of the said Act has been upheld in the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and Others vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 2004 SC 2371 . After the judgment of this Court in Mardia Chemicals, the amending Act 30 of 2004 was inserted. By the said Act 30 of 2004, Section 19(1) of the DRT Act was recanted simultaneously with Section 13 of the NPA Act, 2002. These amendments were made in order to enable the banks/FIs. to withdraw, with the permission of DRT, the O.As. made to it, and thereafter take action under the NPA Act. In the judgment in Mardia Chemicals (supra) this Court observed that, in cases where a secured creditor has taken action under Section 13(4), it would be open to the borrower to file an application under Section 17 of the NPA Act. In the said judgment, this Court further observed that if the borrower, after service of notice under Section 13(2) of the NPA Act, raises any objection or places facts for consideration of the secured creditor, such reply to the notice must be considered by the bank/FI with due application of mind and reasons for not accepting the objections briefly must be given to the borrower. In the said judgment, it is further stated that the reasons so communicated shall only be for the purposes of information/knowledge of the creditor and such reasons will not give him any right to approach the Tribunal under Section 17 of the NPA Act. The appellant herein (M/s Transcore) mainly relied on the said reasons given by this Court in Mardia Chemicals (supra) in support of its contention that the Notice dated 6.1.2003 under Section 13(2) of NPA Act was merely a show cause notice and it did not constitute “action” under the NPA Act and, therefore, the said bank was obliged statutorily to apply for withdrawal of O.A. No. 354/99 before invoking the NPA Act. 10. There is one more reason for enacting NPA Act, 2002. 10. There is one more reason for enacting NPA Act, 2002. When the civil courts failed to expeditiously decide suits filed by the banks/FIs. Parliament enacted the DRT Act, 1993. However, the DRT did not provide for assignment of debts to Securitisation companies. The secured assets also could not be liquidated in time. In order to empower banks or FIs. to liquidate the assets and the secured interest, the NPA Act is enacted in 2002. The enactment of NPA Act is, therefore, not in derogation of the DRT Act. The NPA Act removes the fetters which were in existence on the rights of the secured creditors. The NPA Act is inspired by the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (“SFC Act”), in particular Sections 29 and 31 thereof. The NPA Act proceeds on the basis that the liability of the borrower to repay has crystallized; that the debt has become due and that on account of delay the account of the borrower has become sub-standard and non-performing. The object of the DRT Act as well as the NPA Act is recovery of debt by non- adjudicatory process. These two enactments provide for cumulative remedies to the secured creditors. By removing all fetters on the rights of the secured creditor, he is given a right to choose one or more of the cumulative remedies. The object behind Section 13 of the NPA Act and Section 17 r/w Section 19 of the DRT Act is the same, namely, recovery of debt. Conceptually, there is no inherent or implied inconsistency between the two remedies. Therefore, as stated above, the object behind the enactment of the NPA Act is to accelerate the process of recovery of debt and to remove deficiencies/obstacles in the way of realisation of debt under the DRT Act by the enactment of the NPA Act, 2002. 17. Section 13 falls in Chapter III which deals with enforcement of security interest. It begins with a non-obstante clause. It states inter-alia that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 69 or Section 69A of the TP Act, any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the court’s intervention, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of this Act. When we refer to the word ‘court’ it includes DRT. We quote herein-below sub-section (2) of Section 13 of NPA Act: “13. When we refer to the word ‘court’ it includes DRT. We quote herein-below sub-section (2) of Section 13 of NPA Act: “13. Enforcement of Security interest:- (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 installment 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).” 18. On reading Section 13(2), which is the heart of the controversy in the present case, one finds that if a borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor, makes any default in repayment of secured debt and his account in respect of such debt is classified as non-performing asset then the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge his liabilities within sixty days from the date of the notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights given in Section 13(4). Reading Section 13(2) it is clear that the said sub-section proceeds on the basis that the borrower is already under a liability and further that, his account in the books of the bank or FI is classified as sub- standard, doubtful or loss. The NPA Act comes into force only when both these conditions are satisfied. Section 13(2) proceeds on the basis that the debt has become due. It proceeds on the basis that the account of the borrower in the books of bank/FI, which is an asset of the bank/FI, has become non- performing. Therefore, there is no scope of any dispute regarding the liability. There is a difference between accrual of liability, determination of liability and liquidation of liability. Section 13(2) deals with liquidation of liability. Section 13 deals with enforcement of security interest, therefore, the remedies of enforcement of security interest under the NPA Act and the DRT Act are complementary to each other. There is no inherent or implied inconsistency between these two remedies under the two different Acts. Section 13(2) deals with liquidation of liability. Section 13 deals with enforcement of security interest, therefore, the remedies of enforcement of security interest under the NPA Act and the DRT Act are complementary to each other. There is no inherent or implied inconsistency between these two remedies under the two different Acts. Therefore, the doctrine of election has no application in this case. Section 13(3) inter-alia states that the notice under Section 13(2) shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower as also the details of the secured assets intended to be enforced by the bank/FI. In the event of non- payment of secured debts by the borrower, notice under Section 13(2) is given as a notice of demand. It is very similar to notice of demand under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. After classification of an account as NPA, a last opportunity is given to the borrower of sixty days to repay the debt. Section 13(3-A) inserted by amending Act 30 of 2004 after the judgment of this Court in Mardia Chemicals (supra), whereby the borrower is permitted to make representation/objection to the secured creditor against classification of his account as NPA. He can also object to the amount due if so advised. Under Section 13(3-A), if the bank/FI comes to the conclusion that such objection is not acceptable, it shall communicate within one week the reasons for non- acceptance of the representation/ objection. A proviso is added to Section 13(3-A) which states that the reasons so communicated shall not confer any right upon the borrower to file an application to the DRT under Section 17. The scheme of Sub-sections (2), (3) and (3-A) of Section 13 of NPA Act shows that the notice under Section 13(2) is not merely a show cause notice, it is a notice of demand. That notice of demand is based on the footing that the debtor is under a liability and that his account in respect of such liability has become sub-standard, doubtful or loss. The identification of debt and the classification of the account as NPA is done in accordance with the guidelines issued by RBI. Such notice of demand, therefore, constitutes an action taken under the provisions of NPA Act and such notice of demand cannot be compared to a show cause notice. The identification of debt and the classification of the account as NPA is done in accordance with the guidelines issued by RBI. Such notice of demand, therefore, constitutes an action taken under the provisions of NPA Act and such notice of demand cannot be compared to a show cause notice. In fact, because it is a notice of demand which constitutes an action, Section 13(3-A) provides for an opportunity to the borrower to make representation to the secured creditor. Section 13(2) is a condition precedent to the invocation of Section 13(4) of NPA Act by the bank/FI. Once the two conditions under Section 13(2) are fulfilled, the next step which the bank or FI is entitled to take is either to take possession of the secured assets of the borrower or to take over management of the business of the borrower or to appoint any manager to manage the secured assets or require any person, who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower, to pay the secured creditor towards liquidation of the secured debt. 19. Reading the scheme of Section 13(2) with Section 13(4), it is clear that the notice under Section 13(2) is not a mere show cause notice and it constitutes an action taken by the bank/FI for the purposes of the NPA Act. Section 13(6) inter-alia provides that any transfer of secured asset after taking possession or after taking over of management of the business, under Section 13(4), by the bank/FI shall vest in the transferee all rights in relation to the secured assets as if the transfer has been made by the owner of such secured asset. Therefore, Section 13(6) inter-alia provides that once the bank/FI takes possession of the secured asset, then the rights, title and interest in that asset can be dealt with by the bank/FI as if it is the owner of such an asset. In other words, the asset will vest in the bank/FI free of all encumbrances and the secured creditor would be entitled to give a clear title to the transferee in respect thereof. Section 13(7) refers to recovery of all costs, charges and expenses incurred by the bank/FI for taking action under Section 13(4). Section 13(7) provides for priority in the matter of recovery of dues from the borrower. It inter-alia provides for payment of surplus to the person entitled thereto. Section 13(7) refers to recovery of all costs, charges and expenses incurred by the bank/FI for taking action under Section 13(4). Section 13(7) provides for priority in the matter of recovery of dues from the borrower. It inter-alia provides for payment of surplus to the person entitled thereto. Section 13(8) inter-alia states that if the dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred are tendered to the secured creditor before the debt fixed for sale/transfer, the secured asset shall not be sold or transferred by the bank/FI to the asset reconstruction company and no further steps shall be taken in that regard. Section 13(9) inter-alia states that where a financial asset is funded by more than one bank/FI or in case of joint financing by a consortium, no single secured creditor from that consortium shall be entitled to exercise right under Section 13(4) unless exercise of such right is agreed upon by all the secured creditors. Section 13(9) provides for one more instance when permission of DRT may be required under the first proviso to Section 19(1) of the DRT Act. The agreement between the secured creditors in such cases is required to be placed before the DRT not as a fetter on the rights of the secured creditors but out of abundant caution. Generally, such agreements are complex in measure, particularly because rights of each of the secured creditor in the consortium may be required to be looked into. However, if before the DRT, all the secured creditors in such consortium enter into an agreement under Section 13(9) then no such further inquiry is required to be made by the DRT. In such cases, the DRT has only to see that all the secured creditors in the consortium are represented under the agreement. The point to be noted is that the scheme of the NPA Act does not deal with disputes between the secured creditors and the borrower. On the contrary, the NPA Act deals with the rights of the secured creditors inter se. The reason is that the NPA Act proceeds on the basis that the liability of the borrower has crystallized and that his account is classified as non-performing asset in the hands of the bank/FI. On the contrary, the NPA Act deals with the rights of the secured creditors inter se. The reason is that the NPA Act proceeds on the basis that the liability of the borrower has crystallized and that his account is classified as non-performing asset in the hands of the bank/FI. Section 13(9) also deals with pari passu charge of the workers under Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956, apart from banks and financial institutions, who are secured creditors. Section 13(10) inter-alia states that where the dues of the secured creditor are not fully satisfied by the sale proceeds of the secured assets, the secured creditor may file an application to DRT under Section 17 of the NPA Act for recovery of balance amount from the borrower. Section 13(10), therefore, shows that the bank/FI is not only free to move under NPA Act with or without leave of DRT but having invoked NPA Act, liberty is given statutorily to the secured creditors (banks/FIs.) to move the DRT under the DRT Act once again for recovery of the balance in cases where the action taken under Section 13(4) of the NPA Act does not result in full liquidation of recovery of the debts due to the secured creditors. Section 13(10) fortifies our view that the remedies for recovery of debts under the DRT Act and the NPA Act are complementary to each other. Further, Section 13(10) shows that the first proviso to Section 19(1) of DRT Act is an enabling provision and that the said provision cannot be read as a condition precedent to taking recourse to NPA Act. Section 13(11) of the NPA Act inter-alia states that, without prejudice to the rights conferred on the secured creditor under Section 13, the secured creditor shall be entitled to proceed against the guarantor/pledgor; that the secured creditor shall be entitled to sell the pledged assets without taking recourse under Section 13(4) against the principal borrower in relation to the secured assets under the NPA Act. Section 13(13) states that, no borrower shall, after receipt of notice under Section 13(2), transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise any of his secured assets referred to in the notice, without prior written consent of the secured creditor. Thus, Section 13(13) further fortifies our view that notice under Section 13(2) is not merely a show cause notice. Section 13(13) states that, no borrower shall, after receipt of notice under Section 13(2), transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise any of his secured assets referred to in the notice, without prior written consent of the secured creditor. Thus, Section 13(13) further fortifies our view that notice under Section 13(2) is not merely a show cause notice. In fact, Section 13(13) indicates that the notice under Section 13(2) in effect operates as an attachment/injunction restraining the borrower from disposing of the secured assets and, therefore, such a notice, which in the present case is dated 6.1.2003, is not a mere show cause notice but it is an action taken under the provision of the NPA Act. 20. Section 17 of NPA Act confers right to appeal. It inter-alia states that any person including borrower, aggrieved by exercise of rights by the secured creditor under Section 13(4), may make an application to the DRT as an appellate authority within forty-five days from the date on which action under Section 13(4) is taken. That application should be accompanied by payment of fees prescribed by the 2002 Rules made under the NPA Act. A proviso is added to Section 17(1) by amending Act 30 of 2004. It states that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower. By way of abundant caution, an Explanation is added to Section 17(1) saying that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor rejecting his representation shall not constitute a ground for appeal to the DRT. However, under Section 17(2), the DRT is required to consider whether any of the measures referred to in Section 13(4) taken by the secured creditor for enforcement of security are in accordance with the provisions of the NPA Act and the Rules made thereunder. If the DRT, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced by the parties, comes to the conclusion that any of the measures taken under Section 13(4) are not in accordance with the NPA Act, it shall direct the secured creditor to restore the possession/management to the borrower (vide Section 17(3) of NPA Act). If the DRT, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced by the parties, comes to the conclusion that any of the measures taken under Section 13(4) are not in accordance with the NPA Act, it shall direct the secured creditor to restore the possession/management to the borrower (vide Section 17(3) of NPA Act). On the other hand, after the DRT declares that the recourse taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) is in accordance with the provisions of the NPA Act then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the secured creditor shall be entitled to take recourse to any one or more of the measures specified under Section 13(4) to recover his secured debt.” 35. Though Mr. S. Gopakumaran Nair, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, placing reliance on Transcore vs. Union of India (cited supra), contended that the 5th respondent is no longer an owner of the property mortgaged with the bank/secured creditor, let us consider as to what the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Transcore (cited supra), as under: “50. Therefore, it cannot be said that if possession is taken before confirmation of sale, the rights of the borrower to get the dispute adjudicated upon is defeated by the authorised officer taking possession. As stated above, the NPA Act provides for recovery of possession by non-adjudicatory process, therefore, to say that the rights of the borrower would be defeated without adjudication would be erroneous. Rule 8, undoubtedly, refers to sale of immovable secured asset. However, Rule 8(4) indicates that where possession is taken by the authorised officer before issuance of sale certificate under Rule 9, the authorised officer shall take steps for preservation and protection of secured assets till they are sold or otherwise disposed of. Under Section 13(8), if the dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by him are tendered to the creditor before the date fixed for sale or transfer, the asset shall not be sold or transferred. The costs, charges and expenses referred to in Section 13(8) will include costs, charges and expenses which the authorised officer incurs for preserving and protecting the secured assets till they are sold or disposed of in terms of Rule 8(4). The costs, charges and expenses referred to in Section 13(8) will include costs, charges and expenses which the authorised officer incurs for preserving and protecting the secured assets till they are sold or disposed of in terms of Rule 8(4). Thus, Rule 8 deals with the stage anterior to the issuance of sale certificate and delivery of possession under Rule 9. Till the time of issuance of sale certificate, the authorised officer is like a court receiver under Order XL Rule 1 CPC. The court receiver can take symbolic possession and in appropriate cases where the court receiver finds that a third party interest is likely to be created overnight, he can take actual possession even prior to the decree. The authorized officer under Rule 8 has greater powers than even a court receiver as security interest in the property is already created in favour of the banks/FIs. That interest needs to be protected. Therefore, Rule 8 provides that till issuance of the sale certificate under Rule 9, the authorized officer shall take such steps as he deems fit to preserve the secured asset. It is well settled that third party interests are created overnight and in very many cases those third parties take up the defence of being a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. It is these types of disputes which are sought to be avoided by Rule 8 read with Rule 9 of the 2002 Rules. In the circumstances, the drawing of dichotomy between symbolic and actual possession does not find place in the scheme of the NPA Act read with the 2002 Rules.” 36. Now, let us consider, why Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, was enacted and the safeguards to the rights of the borrower/owner of the property mortgaged. 37. In Mathew Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar and Others, (2014) 5 SCC 610 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the substratum of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and held as under: “When we analyze in depth the stipulations contained in the said sub-section (8), we find that there is a valuable right recognized and asserted in favour of the borrower, who is the owner of the SECURED ASSET and who is extended an opportunity to take all efforts to stop the sale or transfer till the last minute before which the said sale or transfer is to be effected. Having regard to such a valuable right of a debtor having been embedded in the said sub-section, it will have to be stated in uncontroverted terms that the said provision has been engrafted in the SARFAESI Act primarily with a view to protect the rights of a borrower, inasmuch as, such an ownership right is a Constitutional Right protected under Article 300A of the Constitution, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Therefore, de hors, the extent of borrowing made and whatever costs, charges were incurred by the SECURED CREDITOR in respect of such borrowings, when it comes to the question of realizing the dues by bringing the property entrusted with the SECURED CREDITOR for sale to realize money advanced without approaching any Court or Tribunal, the SECURED CREDITOR as a TRUSTEE cannot deal with the said property in any manner it likes and can be disposed of only in the manner prescribed in the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the creditor should ensure that the borrower was clearly put on notice of the date and time by which either the sale or transfer will be effected in order to provide the required opportunity to the borrower to take all possible steps for retrieving his property or at least ensure that in the process of sale the SECURED ASSET derives the maximum benefit and the SECURED CREDITOR or anyone on its behalf is not allowed to exploit the situation of the borrower by virtue of the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. More so, under Section 13(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the SECURED CREDITOR is given a free hand to resort to sale of the property without approaching the Court or Tribunal. Therefore, by virtue of the stipulations contained under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, in particular, Section 13(8), 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 and any such sale or transfer effected without complying with the said statutory requirement would be a constitutional violation and nullify the ultimate sale. Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (Central)- Rules 8 and 9-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 newspaper-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-Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Central Act 54 of 2002) - Section 13(8). 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 Section 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. In other words, while the publication in newspaper should provide for 30 days clear notice, since Rule 9(1) also states that such notice of sale is to be in accordance with 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. In other words, while the publication in newspaper should provide for 30 days clear notice, since Rule 9(1) also states that such notice of sale is to be in accordance with 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. Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (Central)-Rules 8 and 9-The detailed procedure prescribed under the Rules for sale of an immovable secured asset 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (Central)-Rules 8(1) to 8(3)-The underlining purport in Rule 8 is to ensure that under no circumstances the rights of the owner, till such right is transferred in the manner known to law, is infringed- Merely because the provisions of SARFAESI Act and the Rules enables the Secured Creditor to take possession of the property belonging to the owner and also empowers the Secured Creditor to deal with the property by way of sale for the purpose of realizing the secured debt of the borrower, it does not mean that such wide power can be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically to the disadvantage of the borrower. At this juncture, it will also be worthwhile to refer to Rules 8(1) to (3) and in particular sub-rule (3), in order to note the responsibility of the SECURED CREDITOR vis-a-vis the SECURED ASSET taken possession of. Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8, the prescribed manner in which the possession is to be taken by issuing the notice in the format in which such notice of possession is to be issued to the borrower is stipulated. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 again, it is stated as to how the SECURED CREDITOR should publish the notice of possession as prescribed under sub-rule (1) to be made in two leading newspapers, one of which should be in the vernacular language having sufficient circulation in the locality and also such publication should have been made seven days prior to the intention of taking possession. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 really casts much more onerous responsibility on the SECURED CREDITOR once possession is actually taken by its authorised officer. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 8, the property taken possession of by the SECURED CREDITOR should be kept in its custody or in the custody of a person authorized or appointed by it and it is stipulated that such person holding possession should take as much care of the property in its custody as an owner of ordinary prudence would under similar circumstances take care of such property. The underlining purport of such a requirement is to ensure that under no circumstances, the rights of the owner till such right is transferred in the manner known to law is infringed. Merely because the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules enable the SECURED CREDITOR to take possession of such an immovable property belonging to the owner and also empowers to deal with it by way of sale or transfer for the purpose of realizing the secured debt of the borrower, it does not mean that such wide power can be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically to the utter disadvantage of the borrower. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Central Act 54 of 2002)-Sections 35 and 37-In the event of any of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 not being inconsistent with the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, the application of both the Acts would be complimentary to each other-The application of SARFAESI Act will be in addition to and not in derogations of the provisions of the RDDB Act- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Central Act 51 of 1993)-Section 29-Income Tax Rules, 1962-Rule 15. 26. A careful reading of Sub-section (8), therefore, has to be made to appreciate the legal issue involved and the submissions made by the respective counsel on the said provision. A plain reading of Sub-section (8) would show that a borrower can tender to the SECURED CREDITOR the dues together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by the SECURED CREDITOR at any time before the date fixed for sale or transfer. A plain reading of Sub-section (8) would show that a borrower can tender to the SECURED CREDITOR the dues together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by the SECURED CREDITOR at any time before the date fixed for sale or transfer. In the event of such tender once made as stipulated in the said provision, the mandate is that the SECURED ASSET should not be sold or transferred by the SECURED CREDITOR. It is further reinforced to the effect that no further step should also be taken by the SECURED CREDITOR for transfer or sale of the SECURED ASSET. The contingency stipulated in the event of the tender being made by a debtor of the dues inclusive of the costs, charges, etc., would be that such tender being made before the date fixed for sale or transfer, the SECURED CREDITOR should stop all further steps for effecting the sale or transfer. That apart, no further step should also be taken for transfer or sale. When we analyze in depth the stipulations contained in the said sub-section (8), we find that there is a valuable right recognized and asserted in favour of the borrower, who is the owner of the SECURED ASSET and who is extended an opportunity to take all efforts to stop the sale or transfer till the last minute before which the said sale or transfer is to be effected. Having regard to such a valuable right of a debtor having been embedded in the said Sub-section, it will have to be stated in uncontroverted terms that the said provision has been engrafted in the SARFAESI Act primarily with a view to protect the rights of a borrower, inasmuch as, such an ownership right is a Constitutional Right protected under Article 300A of the Constitution, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Therefore, de hors, the extent of borrowing made and whatever costs, charges were incurred by the SECURED CREDITOR in respect of such borrowings, when it comes to the question of realizing the dues by bringing the property entrusted with the SECURED CREDITOR for sale to realize money advanced without approaching any Court or Tribunal, the SECURED CREDITOR as a TRUSTEE cannot deal with the said property in any manner it likes and can be disposed of only in the manner prescribed in the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the creditor should ensure that the borrower was clearly put on notice of the date and time by which either the sale or transfer will be effected in order to provide the required opportunity to the borrower to take all possible steps for retrieving his property or at least ensure that in the process of sale the SECURED ASSET derives the maximum benefit and the SECURED CREDITOR or anyone on its behalf is not allowed to exploit the situation of the borrower by virtue of the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. More so, under Section 13(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the SECURED CREDITOR is given a free hand to resort to sale of the property without approaching the Court or Tribunal. 27. Therefore, by virtue of the stipulations contained under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, in particular, Section 13(8), 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 and any such sale or transfer effected without complying with the said statutory requirement would be a constitutional violation and nullify the ultimate sale. 28. 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 Section 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. 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. In other words, while the publication in newspaper should provide for 30 days clear notice, since Rule 9(1) also states that such notice of sale is to be in accordance with 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. 29. 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. 30. Such a detailed procedure while resorting to a sale of an immovable SECURED ASSET is prescribed under Rules 8 and 9(1). 30. 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. 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. 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. 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. 31. At this juncture, it will also be worthwhile to refer to Rules 8(1) to (3) and in particular Sub-rule (3), in order to note the responsibility of the SECURED CREDITOR vis-à-vis the SECURED ASSET taken possession of. Under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 8, the prescribed manner in which the possession is to be taken by issuing the notice in the format in which such notice of possession is to be issued to the borrower is stipulated. Under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 8, the prescribed manner in which the possession is to be taken by issuing the notice in the format in which such notice of possession is to be issued to the borrower is stipulated. Under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 again, it is stated as to how the SECURED CREDITOR should publish the notice of possession as prescribed under Sub-rule (1) to be made in two leading newspapers, one of which should be in the vernacular language having sufficient circulation in the locality and also such publication should have been made seven days prior to the intention of taking possession. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 8 really casts much more onerous responsibility on the SECURED CREDITOR once possession is actually taken by its authorised officer. Under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8, the property taken possession of by the SECURED CREDITOR should be kept in its custody or in the custody of a person authorized or appointed by it and it is stipulated that such person holding possession should take as much care of the property in its custody as an owner of ordinary prudence would under similar circumstances take care of such property. The underlining purport of such a requirement is to ensure that under no circumstances, the rights of the owner till such right is transferred in the manner known to law is infringed. Merely because the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules enable the SECURED CREDITOR to take possession of such an immovable property belonging to the owner and also empowers to deal with it by way of sale or transfer for the purpose of realizing the secured debt of the borrower, it does not mean that such wide power can be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically to the utter disadvantage of the borrower. 32. Under Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 8, it is further stipulated that the authorized officer should take steps for preservation and protection of SECURED ASSETS and INSURE them if necessary till they are sold or otherwise disposed of. Sub-rule (4), governs all SECURED ASSETS, movable or immovable and a further responsibility is created on the authorised officer to take steps for the preservation and protection of SECURED ASSETS and for that purpose can even INSURE such assets, until it is sold or otherwise disposed of. Sub-rule (4), governs all SECURED ASSETS, movable or immovable and a further responsibility is created on the authorised officer to take steps for the preservation and protection of SECURED ASSETS and for that purpose can even INSURE such assets, until it is sold or otherwise disposed of. Therefore, a reading of Rules 8 and 9, in particular, Sub-rule (1) to (4) and (6) of Rule 8 and Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 makes it clear that simply because a secured interest in a SECURED ASSET is created by the borrower in favour of the SECURED CREDITOR, the said asset in the event of the same having become a NON-PERFORMING ASSET cannot be dealt with in a light-hearted manner by way of sale or transfer or disposed of in a casual manner or by not adhering to the prescriptions contained under the SARFAESI Act and the above said Rules mentioned by us. 35. On a reading of the above paragraphs, we are able to discern the Ratio to the effect that a mere conferment of power to sell without intervention of the Court in the mortgage deed by itself will not deprive the mortgagor of his right to redemption, that the extinction of the right of redemption has to be subsequent to the deed conferring such power, that the right of redemption is not extinguished at the expiry of the period, that the equity of redemption is not extinguished by mere contract for sale and that the mortgagor’s right to redeem will survive until there has been completion of sale by the mortgagee by a registered deed. The ratio is also to the effect that the power to sell should not be exercised unless and until notice in writing requiring payment of the principal money has been served on the mortgagor. The above proposition of law of course was laid down by this Court while construing Section 60 of the T.P. Act. But as rightly contended by Mr. Shyam Divan, we fail to note any distinction to be drawn while applying the above said principles, even in respect of the sale of SECURED ASSETS created by way of a secured interest in favour of the SECURED CREDITOR under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, read along with the relevant Rules. But as rightly contended by Mr. Shyam Divan, we fail to note any distinction to be drawn while applying the above said principles, even in respect of the sale of SECURED ASSETS created by way of a secured interest in favour of the SECURED CREDITOR under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, read along with the relevant Rules. We say so, inasmuch as, we find that even while setting out the principles in respect of the redemption of a mortgage by applying Section 60 of the T.P. Act, this Court has envisaged the situation where such mortgage deed providing for resorting to the sale of the mortgage property without the intervention of the Court. Keeping the said situation in mind, it was held that the right of redemption will not get extinguished merely at the expiry of the period mentioned in the mortgage deed. It was also stated that the equity of redemption is not extinguished by mere contract for sale and the most important and vital principle stated was that the mortgagor’s right to redeem will survive until there has been completion of sale by the mortgagee by a registered deed. The completion of sale, it is stated, can be held to be so unless and until notice in writing requiring payment of the principal money has been served on the mortgagor. Therefore, it was held that until the sale is complete by registration of sale, the mortgagor does not loose the right of redemption. It was also made clear that it was erroneous to suggest that the mortgagee would be acting as the agent of the mortgagor in selling the property. 36. When we apply the above principles stated with reference to Section 60 of the T.P. Act in respect of a secured interest in a SECURED ASSET in favour of the SECURED CREDITOR under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the relevant Rules applicable, under Section 13(1), a free hand is given to a SECURED CREDITOR to resort to a sale without the intervention of the Court or Tribunal. However, under Section 13(8), it is clearly stipulated that the mortgagor, i.e. the borrower, who is otherwise called as a debtor, 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. However, under Section 13(8), it is clearly stipulated that the mortgagor, i.e. the borrower, who is otherwise called as a debtor, 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. Under Sub-section (8) of Section 13, as noted earlier, the SECURED ASSET should not be sold or transferred by the SECURED CREDITOR when such tender is made by the borrower at the last moment before the sale or transfer. The said Sub-section also states that no further step should be taken by the SECURED CREDITOR for transfer or sale of that SECURED ASSET. We find no reason to state that the principles laid down with reference to Section 60 of the T.P. Act, which is general in nature in respect of all mortgages, can have no application in respect of a secured interest in a SECURED ASSET created in favour of a SECURED CREDITOR, as all the above-stated principles apply in all fours in respect of a transaction as between the debtor and SECURED CREDITOR under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 37. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2004) 4 SCC 311 . In paragraph 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 other cases the question of difference in amount may be kept open and got decided before sale of property.” 38. Ownership does not pass by way of mortgage, but by way of sale. In cases where no such dispute is there, the right can be exercised and in other cases the question of difference in amount may be kept open and got decided before sale of property.” 38. Ownership does not pass by way of mortgage, but by way of sale. Although auction notice is published, in terms of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI, 2002, the same has to take place as per the procedure contemplated, the auction purchaser has to deposit the entire bid amount, within the time specified under the Act and the rules framed thereunder, auction has to be confirmed and consequently, sale certificate has to be issued. Only thereafter, it can be said that the title to the property under mortgage is transferred to the auction purchaser. Till such time, the ownership of the property under mortgage, remains with the borrower. Even taking it for granted that the bank/secured creditor is in possession, the bank or any other person can acquire title, only by way of sale in accordance with the law. A mortgage is the transfer of an interest and not the entire right and title, which takes place only in sale. 39. Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, is a safety measure to the borrower, as to how the secured asset can be brought for auction to recover the amount borrowed. Here we may quote a passage from Salmond’s Jurisprudence (7th Edition, 1924 at p.280), which reads thus: “The right of the owner of a thing may be all but eaten up by the dominant rights of lessees, mortgagees and other encumbrances. His ownership may be reduced to a mere name rather than a reality. Yet, he nonetheless remains the owner of the thing, while all others own nothing more than ‘right’ over it.....He, then, is the owner of a material object, who owns a right to the general or residuary uses of it, after the deduction of all special and limited rights of use vested by way of encumbrance in other persons.” 40. No doubt, by mortgage, a charge is created on the property. There could be more than one charge also. In a given case, the borrower may have revenue arrears also, which he has to clear. Merely because there is a charge on the property, it cannot be contended that the borrower has lost his status as the owner of the property. 41. There could be more than one charge also. In a given case, the borrower may have revenue arrears also, which he has to clear. Merely because there is a charge on the property, it cannot be contended that the borrower has lost his status as the owner of the property. 41. In a given case, in the mortgaged property, there could be a tenant. As owner of the property, although mortgaged, still the borrower is entitled to collect rent from the tenant. As an owner, he has to pay the electricity, water, and other charges to the authorities concerned. In the case of mortgage, the mortgagee possesses an interest in the immovable property, but the mortgagor is the owner of the property. Just because proceedings have been initiated under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and the rules framed thereunder, he cannot be deprived of his right in the property as owner. 42. Yet another aspect to be considered is that the Authorized officer, who brings the property for auction, performs only his duty under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and the rules framed thereunder, for recovery of the amount due to the bank, and by mere publication of an auction notice, right of the owner to redeem the property is not lost. 43. In the light of the decision in Transcore vs. Union of India (cited supra), the secured creditor stands in the position of a receiver and if that be so, it is not open for the bank/secured creditor, who has a charge over the secured asset, to contend that the borrower has lost the status of owner of the property. 44. Giving due consideration to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and the rules framed thereunder, we are of the view that the borrower, who had defaulted to pay the loan amount with interest for which, properties are brought for auction, is still the owner of the property and entitled to seek for enforcement of his rights, under the laws in force. Therefore, the 5th respondent, can seek enforcement of his property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 45. In the light of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition. The reliefs sought for by the petitioner are rejected. Writ petition is dismissed.