challenging the sameSARFAESI measures in respectof the same secured asset, whichwasdismissedfor default on 18 07.2023 On merits, it was contended that theRespondent No.3alongwithothers including Respondent No.4availed creditfacilities from the Respondent Bank by creatinga valid and enforceable security interest over the scheduleproperty, defaulted in repayment resulting in NPA classification and initiation ofSecuritizationproceedings.The Applicant claims titteunder a registered SaleDeeddated10.01.2018, executed by RespondentNo.3 subsequent to issuanceof theSection 13(2) demand notice dated 07,05.2012and taking of symbolic possession on 31.08.2012, and without theBank's consent.Relying upon Section 13(13) of theSARFAESIAct and the judgmentin vasu P. Shetty v. M/s Hotel VandanaPalace& Ors., (2014) 5 SCC660, the learned counsel contended thatsuchtransferis not binding upon the secured creditor. It was furthercontended that the Applicantcannot claim the status of a bona fidepurchaser, as the possession notice had been duly affixed andpublished much prior to the alleged purchase, thereby constituting constructive notice ofthe Bank's security interest. The doctrine of caveatEmptor (let the buyer beware) squarely applies in thecase of the Applicant. The learned counsel asserted due compliancewlth the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, 2002, and accordingly soughtdismissal of the S.A. with exemplary costs.
