Rajasekhar Mantha, J. - (1.) The facts of the case are that the writ petitioner participated in an auction conducted by the respondent bank under Section 13(4) of the SURFAESI Act, 2002. The title deed of the property based on which the bank asserts its rights on the secured asset is a certified copy of the original. The original is stated to have been lost and/or destroyed.
(2.) The petitioner participated in an auction despite notice of such defect in the title of the property. It is stated at the bar that after initially withdrawing its bid from the proceedings, the borrower once again participated in the auction, on the banks assurance that it should obtain an endorsement from the Registrar of Assurances concerned on the certified copy that the same shall be valid as an original title deed and in place of the original title deed. It is not understood as to under what law the endorsement to that effect could be issued by the Registrar of Assurances and to what effect such endorsement would be in law.
(3.) Be that as it may, the bank after accepting the 25% of the bid value, as submitted by the writ petitioner, extended the time for putting in the balance 75%. The same according to me is a violation of Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules since the borrower has not consented to such extension.;