another Sale Notice was issued on 04.01.2016 fixing sale on 08.02.2016, and as no bidder turned up on that date, again Sale Notice was issued on 23.02.2016 for sale on 26.02.2016, for which the 2nd Respondent herein is declared as a successful bidder. Nowhere it is pleaded that Sale Notice dated 23.02.2016 is a continuation of earlier Sale Notices. From facts, it is clear that Appellant Bank on the earlier two occasions followed a gap of 30 days in between Sale Notice and date of sale, for the disputed Notice, the time gap is only three days. As rightly pointed out by Advocate for Respondent No.1, the facts of this case are entirely different to the facts in the case decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court. On that reported decision, plea of Bank was that second Sale Notice was not a separate Notice, it was a continuation of earlier Sale Notice which was accepted on facts of that case. Further, considering the conduct of borrower therein, namely number of cases filed obstructing the sale, Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order of DRAT which accepted plea of Bank that subsequent Notice is only continuation of earlier Sale Notice, and that there is no separate
