JUDGMENT : R.K. GUPTA, J. (CHAIRPERSON) 1. They are heard. The present Appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is the borrower, under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 challenging the order passed by the Tribunal on 31st October, 2012 in S.A. No. 181/2011. By this order the securitisation application preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. The relevant facts for adjudication of the present case are that the appellants were granted the housing loan by the respondent-Bank, but the same was not paid, therefore, the Bank proceeded to take action by issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. In spite of the notice, the loan was not paid, therefore, the Bank proceeded to take recourse under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The house in question which was the secured asset was put to auction and the reserve price was fixed for a sum of Rs. 8.00 lacs. 2. The appellant has filed the sale proclamation on record and according to the condition No. 2, the persons who are willing to participate in the auction, shall pay 10% of the reserve price in the name of the Authorized Officer of the respondent-Bank, as earnest money. 3. The respondent No. 3 intended to participate in the auction and deposited 10% of the reserve price which was a condition precedent in the sale proclamation to participate in the auction. The auction was conducted by inviting the tenders and according to the Bank, the tenders were opened on 8th June, 2011. After opening of the tenders, the highest bid of the respondent No. 3 which was for a sum of Rs. 8.21 lacs was accepted by the Bank. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 was intimated by the authorised officer vide its letter dated 18th June, 2011 that his highest bid has been accepted and the respondent No. 3 was directed to deposit 25% of the sale price. 4. According to the respondent-Bank, on 18th June, 2011 the respondent No. 3 deposited a sum of Rs. 1.22 lacs and 10% of earnest money i.e. Rs. 80,000/- was also included which was received by the Bank, which according to the Bank, was 25% of the sale price, and the balance amount of 75% which was for a sum of Rs. 6.19 lacs was deposited on 21st June, 2011. 5. 1.22 lacs and 10% of earnest money i.e. Rs. 80,000/- was also included which was received by the Bank, which according to the Bank, was 25% of the sale price, and the balance amount of 75% which was for a sum of Rs. 6.19 lacs was deposited on 21st June, 2011. 5. It is the case of the appellant before the Tribunal that since the amount of 25% of the "sale price" was not deposited immediately on the date of sale as per the Rule 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, therefore, there was noncompliance of Rule 9(3) of the Rules, 2002. 6. The respondent-Bank before the Tribunal below submitted that since the auction purchaser has already deposited 10% of the reserve price before the date of auction and after when by letter dated 18th June, 2011 the intimation was given to the auction purchaser that his bid is accepted and the sale stands confirmed in his favour them the total amount of 25% is received by the Bank after adjusting the amount of Rs. 80,000/- with Rs. 1.22 lacs, which was deposited by the auction purchaser on 18th June, 2011. The full amount of 25% stands received and therefore, it is a case where there is no case for breach or non-compliance of Rule 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2009. 7. It was the case of the Bank that the total amount of the "sale price" i.e. Rs. 8.21 lacs has been received within a period of 3 days from 18th June, 2011, though the Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 2002 states that the amount shall be paid on or before 15th day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property, therefore, in the present case the cumulative effect of Rule 9(3) and (4) stands complied with. 8. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that in the present case there was full compliance of Rule 9(3) as well as Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, therefore, there was no illegality of any nature committed by the Bank and hence, the Tribunal dismissed the securitisation application preferred by the appellant. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the Counsel for the respondent-Bank supports the order passed by the Tribunal. 10. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the Counsel for the respondent-Bank supports the order passed by the Tribunal. 10. For the purposes of appreciating the rival submissions which were made by the parties Counsel, it will be appropriate to refer hereinbelow the Rule 9(3) and (4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, which read as under: 9(3) on every sale of immovable property, the purchaser shall immediately pay a deposit of twenty-five per cent, of the amount of the sale price, to the authorized officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be sold again. (4) The balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorised officer on or before the fifteenth day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period as may be agreed upon in writing between the parties. 11. As it is evident from the reading of Rule 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 that on every sale of immovable property the purchaser shall immediately pay a deposit of 25% of the amount of the "sale price" to the authorized officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be sold again. 12. Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 states that the balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorized officer on or before the 15th day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period as may be agreed upon in writing between the parties. 13. The impact of Rule 9(3) of Rules, 2002 is apparent and it states that 25% of the amount of the "sale price" has to be deposited immediately and the impact of Rule 9(4) of Rules, 2002 is that balance amount of "purchase price" will be deposited on or within 15 days from the date of confirmation of the sale. As per Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 the consequence of default i.e. by not depositing the amount by the auction purchaser of 25% of "sale price" is that the auction will fail and there will be re-auction of the property. As per Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 the consequence of default i.e. by not depositing the amount by the auction purchaser of 25% of "sale price" is that the auction will fail and there will be re-auction of the property. So far as the Rule 9(4) is concerned, it only provides that the balance amount of purchase price shall be paid by the auction purchaser on or within 15 days of confirmation of sale of the immovable property. Indirectly, the consequence of Rule 9(4) is also provided by virtue of Rule 9(5) for forfeiture of all claims to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold. When by virtue of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 it is provided that "immediately" the amount of 25% of the sale price is to be deposited, then it has to be deposited immediately. The deposit of 10% is not an amount towards the "sale price" but is a deposit towards the upset price notified in the sale proclamation which in fact is the earnest money enabling a person to participate in the bid process. 14. When the Legislature states that on acceptance of bid immediately 25% of the amount of the "sale price" is to be deposited, then 25% of the amount of the "sale price" has to be deposited. Under no stretch of imagination the earnest money deposited by the auction purchaser of "upset price" would include the amount of "sale price". The connotation of "reserve price" and the "sale price" is entirely different and cannot be mixed together. If the amount of 25% of the "sale price" is not deposited immediately, then such auction has to fail and the earnest money deposited by the auction purchaser which was the condition to participate in the auction cannot be treated to be an amount towards the "sale price". Thus, the Bank committed a mistake by including Rs. 80,000/-, which was 10% of the Reserve price to treat as deposit towards the sale price. 15. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 states that the balance amount of 'purchase price' payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorised officer on or before the fifteenth day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period as may be agreed upon in writing between the parties. 15. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 states that the balance amount of 'purchase price' payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorised officer on or before the fifteenth day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period as may be agreed upon in writing between the parties. In Rule 9(4) the balance amount of 75% has not been mentioned but it only states "balance amount". 16. Thus, the cumulative reading of Rule 9(3) and (4) would only mean that at first the auction purchaser has to deposit 25% of the "sale price" on every sale of immovable property. When Rule 9(4) states about the deposit of "balance amount", then at that stage Rs. 80,000/- i.e. 10% as earnest money could not have been adjusted towards are "sale price", which would also be the "balance amount" towards the sale price. The laxity of deposit is not up to the extent of 75% but could be even less after when 25% of "sale price" is deposited by the auction purchaser on confirmation of his bid as per Rule 9(3), but for the purpose of Rule 9(3) no amount less than 25% of the "sale price" can be accepted on confirmation of the sale which is to be deposited immediately. 17. Rule 9(4) does not provide the word "immediately" but Rule 9(4) only states that the amount has to be deposited on or within 15 days on confirmation of the sale makes an obligation on the part of the auction purchaser to deposit the balance amount. 18. As per Rule 9(4) the question arises that what is "balance amount". The Balance amount cannot be treated to be of 75% only, but the balance amount would only mean that 25% of the amount of sale price deposited on the sale and 10% also of the earnest money so deposited is to be reduced and total of the same would be the "balance amount" for the purpose of properly enforcing the language of the Legislature as used in Rule 9(4). The rule as aforesaid which provides the deposit of balance amount and also the period. Thus, in the present case the auction purchaser even within a period on or within 15 days of the auction has to deposit the full amount for which the bit' was accepted i.e. Rs. 8.21 lacs. The rule as aforesaid which provides the deposit of balance amount and also the period. Thus, in the present case the auction purchaser even within a period on or within 15 days of the auction has to deposit the full amount for which the bit' was accepted i.e. Rs. 8.21 lacs. The auction purchaser in compliance of Rule 9(3) has not deposited 25% of the amount of the sale price. Thus, it is the case which fails within the purview of non-compliance of Rule 9(3) of the Rules, 2002. 19. In this reference, it is the case of the Bank itself that after the letter dated 18th June, 2011, which is a letter confirming the sale, the auction purchaser deposited a sum of Rs. 1.22 lacs and Rs. 80,000/- was also adjusted towards the sale price 25% amount of the sale price i.e. Rs. 8.21/- lacs comes to Rs. 2,06,250/- and the total amount is to be calculated i.e. Rs. 80,000/- + Rs. 1.22 lacs comes to Rs. 2,02,000/- and thus, still there is shortfall of Rs. 3,250/-. Even assuming that submission of the Bank is accepted, yet they are entitled to adjust the said amount, even then there was no deposit of 25% of the sale price by the auction purchaser and the same was not in consonance to Rule 9(3) of Rules, 2002. 20. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that the word "immediately" has been used by the Legislature in Rule 9(3) of the Rules 2002, therefore, the word "immediately" does not mean that on confirmation of sale the amount is deposited, but it pre-supposes that the amount can be accepted on or within 15 days for confirmation as provided under Rule 9(4) of Rules, 2002. There is fallacy in the submission. 21. It is to be seen that there are two separate period prescribed for compliance of Rule 9(3) and Rule 9(4). The Rule 9(3) provides the deposit of 25% of sale price immediately and the balance amount is to be deposited under Rule 9(4) on or before 15th day on confirmation of sale of the property. 22. When under Rule 9(4) the balance amount is to be deposited on or before 15th day on confirmation of sale, then as per Rule 9(4) the full amount can also be deposited either on the date of confirmation of sale or before 15th day on confirmation of sale. 22. When under Rule 9(4) the balance amount is to be deposited on or before 15th day on confirmation of sale, then as per Rule 9(4) the full amount can also be deposited either on the date of confirmation of sale or before 15th day on confirmation of sale. 23. In the present case, the sale was already confirmed by the appropriate authority, which is reflected from the letter of the Bank dated 18th June, 2011. If the submission is accepted, then by virtue of Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 2002 the full sale or purchase price can also be deposited on the date of confirmation of sale, but it is not the eventuality in the present case, then there is no need for the Legislature to provide in Rule 9(3) by making provisions to deposit the amount of 25% of the sale price immediately, therefore, once the balance amount is to be paid on or before 15th day on confirmation of sale, then by virtue of Rule 9(4) even after deposit of 25% of the sale price, the balance amount can always be deposited on the date of the sale and subsequent to the deposit of 25%, therefore, the word ''immediately?" has to be understood in the context of the situation that when the bid is accepted and 25% amount is deposited immediately by the auction purchaser and, therefore, even on the same day as per Rule 9(4) the balance of the amount has to be deposited. 24. It is not case of the Bank that on 18th June, 2011 the appellant deposited full price or deposited 25% of the sale price by excluding 10% of the earnest money and the plea in this regard has already been decided in the earlier paragraphs of this order. 25. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, it is clear that in the present case the proceedings conducted by the Bank are in contravention to Rule 9(3) of the Rules, 2002. 26. In view of the aforesaid, the Bank will have liberty to re-auction the property or even sell the property to the prospective buyer if any produced by the appellant, who has offered Rs. 13.00 lacs to purchase the properly which is higher than the amount received by the Bank in the auction i.e. Rs. 8.21 lacs. It is contended on behalf of the parties that Rs. 13.00 lacs to purchase the properly which is higher than the amount received by the Bank in the auction i.e. Rs. 8.21 lacs. It is contended on behalf of the parties that Rs. 13.00 lacs which is deposited with this Tribunal be kept with this Tribunal till such decision is taken by the Bank. In case, the decision is taken, then both the parties will file an application to this Tribunal for disbursement of the amount. The amount so deposited by the auction purchaser be returned by the Bank to him along with the interest of 10% per annum. In view of the aforesaid, the Appeal stands allowed and the auction is set aside. Order announced in presence of the Counsel for the appellant and respondents in open Court.