property to the auction purchaser. The respondent bank has already obtained an order u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the notice was issued to the appellants for taking possession of the subject property when the S.A. was filed. The contentions raised in the challenge to the Sarfaesi measures is that the demand notice issued u/s 13(2) does not give a bifurcation u/s 13(3). Moreover, the said notice does not reveal the name and designation of the authorised officer who issued it. It is further contended that the provisions under Rules 8 (1) and (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules have not been complied with by the respondent bank before taking symbolic possession of the property. In consequence of the order u/s 14, a notice of only seven days was given for taking possession. The appellants insist on at least 15 days' notice of dispossession. The Ld. Presiding Officer observes that the rules do not prescribe 15 days prior notice before taking possession u/s 14 and therefore, a notice of one week would suffice. Mr Charles, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Writ Petition No. 68/2012 wherein it is specifically observed and therefore, before taking possession u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, a fortnight’s notice is required. The Ld. Counsel therefore, would say that even though no statutory rules are prescribing a specific notice period before taking possession, the precedent of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court indicates that a fortnight’s notice is mandatory and therefore, there is a violation of rules. Hence the impugned order is erroneous.
