"In terms of the statutory scheme of the SARFAES/AcI and the Rules of 2002 and giuen the weightg preponderance of judicial wbdom, as sef 'il::.'::"::;:":::::;:::":"::;;i:i,,";:::ll',ffin" interuention of a Court or a Tibunal, but in accord.ance with tl,Le procedure prescribed therefor, cannot take the responsibilitg resting upon it lightlg. Such a secured creditor not onlg ou)es a dutg to protect the interest of the borrower bg raising the best possible pice while selling his mortgaged properties, but also owes a dutg to the quction purchaser to uerifu the encumbrances that attach to the mortgaged properlg proposed to be sold, so as to inform all intending bidders of the same. Clquses (a) and (f) in the prouiso to Rule 8(6) of the Ru/es of 2OO2 bear out this responsibilitg explicitly, as the seanred creditor is mandated. thereunder to include the detoils of the encumbrqnces known to it qnd also ang other thing uhich may be considered. material for a purchaser to know in order to judge the nature and ualue of the propertg. These clcuses therefore uisit a dutg uponthe secured creditor to undertake due diligence at least at the stage of putting the secured" asset to sale, if not at the time of taking the said propertA as securitg tahile granting loans, so that the bidders in the auction can rest assured that the bank has taken necessary measures in this regard and. proceed" to participate in the auction sale. Ignorance of the secured creditor as to the encumbrances on the property sold bg it is no longer an acceptable argument in the light of the decisions of uarious Courts rejecting the plea " thqt a sale on as is where is basis constitutes a shield. of protection". ----''--'l:"::-''-^ .'.i. , '"I' .6\i--. ^-:r .;-'; '- i. I. t{ii.,1. :{f .l;r. .,.. r, ' ,,i* - t^$ o$rl., ,.
