₹ 5,90,71,645/- which is due from them, submits the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent. It is further submitted that the secured asset has been sold, and a sale certificate issued. The bank is already in possession of the property and it is being handed over to the auction purchaser. The possession could not be handed over because certain movable properties belonging to the Appellants have to be removed from there. 3. The Appellants have challenged the Sarfaesi measures on the ground that the reserve price has not been properly fixed. The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 5, 8 and 9 have not been complied with, and the sale conducted is not proper. It is also submitted that the sale notice is served on a dead person as one of the co-borrowers Ms Chaya Suresh who is the owner of the property had died even before the auction sale was fixed 4. After having heard both sides, I find that the amount that is due from the Appellant is ₹5,90,71,645/-. The Appellants state that they have paid ₹80,00,000/- subsequent to receipt of the demand notice needs to be deducted, but the Ld. Counsel appearing for the bank submits that the amount has been received and has already been already accounted for and the balance pointed out is after adjusting that amount. I am not going to delve deep into the correctness of the amount which has been claimed because the limited purpose for which the application is being heard, is to make the pre-deposit.
