are not in physical possession of the property and that it has been entrusted to someone else under a leave and license agreement. Having parted with the possession of the property and earning income therefrom, it was opined that the Appellants did not approach the D.R.T. with a clean hand therefore, the Ld. Presiding Officer declined to protect their possession for want of sufficient prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the I.A., the Appellants are in appeal. 3. The Appellants will first have to cross the hurdle of making the pre-deposit under Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, for entertaining this appeal. The demand notice issued u/s 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act on 04.10.2022 demands a sum of ₹25,76,861.64. Various challenges have been raised to the Sarfaesi action starting from the fact that the demand notice does not give the bifurcation of the amount demanded as required u/s 13 (3) of the SARFAESI Act. It is also contended that the Authorized Officer who has signed the demand notice has not established that he was authorised to issue the notice. It is further contended that all the borrowers and the guarantors have not been served with the notice u/s 13 (2) which is essential because they would all come within the classification of being borrowers under the SARFAESI Act. The calculation of the amount allegedly due from the Appellants is also challenged for the reason that some of the payments which have been made by the Appellants have not been accounted for. The 2nd Appellant has produced her income tax returns from 2015 to 2021 indicating that she has no sufficient income to deposit 50% of the debt due as predeposit.
