In Brief
This case concerns the interpretation of Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, governing the timeline for payment of purchase price in auctions of mortgaged property. The auction purchaser deposited earnest money and 25% of the sale price immediately, but delayed depositing the remaining 75% until 13 March 2013 — within 15 days of the secured creditor's confirmation of sale on 27 February 2013. The borrower challenged the sale, arguing the 15-day period commenced from the auction date (14 February), making the deposit late. The Supreme Court held that the 15-day deposit period under Rule 9(4) runs from the date of confirmation by the secured creditor, not from the auction date. The auction purchaser had complied with all requirements, so the sale certificate was validly issued and the auction could not be set aside."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.