PROGRESSIVE ENTERPRISES Vs. NAINITAL BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the interim order rendered by the learned D.R.T. on 17th August, 2007. The only argument urged before me was that thirty days' time was not granted to the borrowers as per notification published in the newspaper. The newspaper's clip placed on the record clearly goes to show that the same was issued on 8th August, 2007 and was published in the newspaper on 9th August, 2007, wherein it was printed that all the tenders must be sent on or before 22nd August, 2007. The tenders were to be opened on 24th August, 2007. Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that clear -cut thirty days' time must be granted in favour of the borrowers as per Rules 6(2) and 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

(2.) I see no merit in this argument. As a matter of fact, this is not the first notice. This is second notice. I am of the considered view that for the second notice the time of thirty days is not mandatory. Thirty days' time has to be reckoned from the first notice. In this case the first notice was issued on 23rd May, 2007. The clip of the said newspaper i.e. Amar Ujala has also been placed on the record. In this case tenders were to be opened on 25th June, 2007. A clear -cut time of thirty days was granted to the tenderers as well as the borrowers. The learned Counsel for the appellants did not pick up a conflict with this fact. The appellants had already received the notice and thirty days' time was also granted in their favour.

(3.) MOREOVER , Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 lays down: