JUDGMENT : ALOK ARADHE, J. 1. These intra Court appeals emanate from a common order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petitions preferred by the appellants have been dismissed. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of these appeals briefly stated are that the appellants are Companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The Karnataka State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) is a Corporation established under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The Corporation published e-auction notice in English and Regional newspapers in respect of Property No. 1014/D, Binnamangala 2nd Stage, 17th E Cross, Indiranagar, Bangalore on 27.02.2012. The auction was scheduled to be held on 31.03.2012. The appellant participated in the auction and the bid of the appellant was found to be the highest. The appellant was informed that the bid has been accepted subject to confirmation of the sale. The appellant thereafter was required to remit a sum of Rs. 20,50,000/- which was tendered by the appellant on 31.03.2012. The appellant was required to pay the balance 75% of the bid amount. 3. In the meanwhile, the borrower had submitted an application on 06.03.2012 under the one time settlement scheme. Till then, the confirmation of sale had not taken place. The borrower deposited the entire amount due to the Corporation on 26.09.2012. Thereafter, the Corporation remitted the earnest money deposit to the appellant on 22.01.2013. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition namely W.P. No. 30220/2012 before the learned Single Judge in which a prayer was made to convey the property subject to deposit of 75% of the amount. 4. The Corporation issued another auction notice on 15.03.2012 by which the auction in respect of another property namely property bearing Nos. 467/30, 45th Cross Road, 8th Block, Sangam Circle, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560082 was scheduled to be held on 05.05.2012. The appellant also participated in the aforesaid auction and his bid was declared to be the highest. The appellant deposited 25% of the bid amount on 05.05.2012. In the meanwhile, one of the legal representatives of the borrower filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in which an interim order was granted by the Tribunal. By the aforesaid interim order, it was directed by the Tribunal that in case the borrower deposits a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- the auction shall remain in abeyance. In the meanwhile, one of the legal representatives of the borrower filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in which an interim order was granted by the Tribunal. By the aforesaid interim order, it was directed by the Tribunal that in case the borrower deposits a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- the auction shall remain in abeyance. The borrower deposited a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 13.05.2012. The Corporation therefore, vide communication dated 16.08.2012, informed the appellant that the auction has been temporarily cancelled. Thereafter, the appellant filed a writ petition namely W.P. No. 30221/2012. 5. However subsequently, the appeal filed by the borrower before the Tribunal was dismissed on 10.10.2014. The Corporation thereupon issued another sale notice on 25.11.2006 which was published in the newspaper dated 27.11.2016. The aforesaid sale notice was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition namely W.P. No. 63249/2016. The learned Single Judge, by a common order dated 18.09.2018, dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the appellant. In the aforesaid factual background, these appeals have been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’) is a special law and has a overriding effect over any other provision of law. It is further submitted that an auction in respect of the property held under the provisions of the aforesaid Act, can be withdrawn before the sale in the auction. It is further submitted that once the sale takes place, the authority has no jurisdiction to cancel the auction. In support of aforesaid submission, reference has also been made to provisions of Rule 8 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pegasus Assets Reconstruction (P) Ltd. vs. Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 47 and Madras High Court decision in K. Chidambara Manickam vs. Shakeena and Others, AIR 2008 Madras 108. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that the issued involved in these appeals is no longer res integra and is infact covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in Mathew Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar and Others, (2014) 5 SCC 610 . 8. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. 8. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. The core issue involved in these appeals is whether the mortgagee has a right to redeem the property after the auction of the property has been held. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra and has been answered by the Supreme Court in Mathew Varghese (supra). Paragraphs 37 to 39 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below for the facility of reference: “37. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision in Narandas Karsondas, in which the right of a mortgagor as prescribed under section 60 of the TP act has been spelt out. Under section 60 of the TP act, at any time after the principal money fell due, there is a right in the mortgagor on payment or tender at a proper time and place of the mortgage money, to require a mortgagee to restore the property to the mortgagor with all rights prescribed as it stood prior to the mortgage. Under the proviso, the only impediment would be that if such a right of a mortgagor stood extinguished by the act of the parties or by the decree of a court. Certain other conditions are also stipulated in the said provision for the mortgagor to seek for redemption of the mortgaged property. Dealing with the said provision, this Court held as under in Paras 34 and 35. Paras 34 and 35 are as under: (SCC p. 254) “34. The right of redemption which is embodied in Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act is available to the mortgagor unless it has been extinguished by the act of parties. The combined effect of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17 of the Registration Act is that a contract for sale in respect of immovable property of the value of more than one hundred rupees without registration cannot extinguish the equity of redemption. In India it is only on execution of the conveyance and registration of transfer of the mortgagor's interest by registered instrument that the mortgagor's right of redemption will be extinguished. The conferment of power to sell without intervention of the court in a mortgage deed by itself will not deprive the mortgagor of his right to redemption. In India it is only on execution of the conveyance and registration of transfer of the mortgagor's interest by registered instrument that the mortgagor's right of redemption will be extinguished. The conferment of power to sell without intervention of the court in a mortgage deed by itself will not deprive the mortgagor of his right to redemption. The extinction of the right of redemption has to be subsequent to the deed conferring such power. The right of redemption is not extinguished at the expiry of the period. The equity of redemption is not extinguished by mere contract for sale. 35. The mortgagor's right to redeem will survive until there has been completion of sale by the mortgagee by a registered deed. In England a sale of property takes place by agreement but it is not so in our country. The power to sell shall not be exercised unless and until notice in writing requiring payment of the principal money has been served on the mortgagor. Further Section 69(3) of the Transfer of Property Act shows that when a sale has been made in professed exercise of such a power, the title of the purchaser shall not be impeachable on the ground that no case had arisen to authorise the sale. Therefore, until the sale is complete by registration the mortgagor does not lose right of redemption.” (Emphasis added) 38. 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 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 in Narandas Karsondas while construing section 60 of the TP act. But as rightly contended by Mr. Shyam Divan, we fail to note any distinction to be drawn while applying the abovesaid 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 TP 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 lose 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. 39. When we apply the above principles stated with reference to section 60 of the TP 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. 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 TP 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 abovestated principles apply on all fours in respect of a transaction as between the debtor and secured creditor under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.” 9. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid decision, it is evident that the principles laid down with reference to Section 60 of the Property Act which is general in nature in respect of all the mortgages, applies in respect of a secured asset or a security interest mortgaged in respect of secured creditor under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, a secured asset can be redeemed before a sale deed is executed or the sale of the secured asset is confirmed in favor of the purchaser. 10. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that once a date of auction is fixed, the Corporation has no right to postpone the auction or to withdraw the auction notice, is misconceived and is therefore, rejected. 11. In order to sell an asset, the Corporation is required to be give 30 days' notice. In paragraph 53 of the judgment in the case of Mathew Varghese (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under: 53. We, therefore, hold that unless and until a clear 30 days' notice is given to the borrower, no sale or transfer can be resorted to by a secured creditor. In paragraph 53 of the judgment in the case of Mathew Varghese (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under: 53. We, therefore, hold that unless and until a clear 30 days' notice is given to the borrower, no sale or transfer can be resorted to by a secured creditor. In the event of any such sale properly notified after giving 30 days' clear notice to the borrower did not take place as scheduled for reasons which cannot be solely attributable to the borrower, the secured creditor cannot effect the sale or transfer of the secured asset on any subsequent date by relying upon the notification issued earlier. In other words, once the sale does not take place pursuant to a notice issued under Rules 8 and 9, read along with Section 13(8) for which the entire blame cannot be thrown on the borrower, it is imperative that for effecting the sale, the procedure prescribed above will have to be followed afresh, as the notice issued earlier would lapse. In that respect, the only other provision to be noted is sub-rule (8) of Rule 8 as per which sale by any method other than public auction or public tender can be on such terms as may be settled between the parties in writing. As far as sub-rule (8) is concerned, the parties referred to can only relate to the secured creditor and the borrower. It is, therefore, imperative that for the sale to be effected under Section 13(8), the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 read along with Rule 9(1) has to be necessarily followed, inasmuch as that is the prescription of the law for effecting the sale as has been explained in detail by us in the earlier paragraphs by referring to Sections 13(1), 13(8) and 37, read along with Section 29 and Rule 15. In our considered view any other construction will be doing violence to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, in particular Sections 13(1) and (8) of the said Act. 12. Thus, in compliance of the aforesaid mandate, after dismissal of the appeal by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 10.10.2014, the Corporation had issued auction notice dated 27.11.2016. The aforesaid auction notice is in consonance with law and does not suffer from any infirmity. 13. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 14. The aforesaid auction notice is in consonance with law and does not suffer from any infirmity. 13. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 14. In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.