the S.A., cannot re-agitate all over again in the present S.A. The only contention that has been raised in the present S.A. is regarding the challenge to the sale notice and also putting forth a claim that the first Appellant’s proprietorship is an MSME entitled to the benefit therein. The earlier S.A. does not have any pleadings that the first Appellant is entitled to relief under the MSME Act, and therefore, the said claim also needs to be considered waived. The Ld. Counsel also points out that the averment of the Appellants that they were not given any concession during the pandemic, is pointed out to be untrue. It is stated that the Respondent had sent a reply to the letter dated 21.12.2020 and a moratorium of 6 months and 5 months respectively for the two facilities was also granted to the Appellants. The loan was restructured. Nothing has to be mentioned by the Appellants regarding those concessions which were granted by the Respondent to the Appellants. Hence, the Appellants have not come with clean hands and therefore, they are not entitled to any benefits, argues the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent. According to the Ld. Counsel appearing for the bank, the outstanding amount after deducting the amount paid by the Appellants, inclusive of interest as of date is ₹2,50,86,068/-. The sale notice was challenged but since no protection order was granted, the sale was intended to proceed on the 15th instant. But so far no bids have been received by the bank and therefore, the sale is not likely to be accomplished. The challenge to the sale was sought to be brought about in the S.A. by way of amendment, which was disallowed. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that the application concerning the amendment
