demand notice gives a description of the property which is intended to be proceeded against. It does not include 4 garages which are on the part of the mortgage property. The demand notice mentions just a flat and not garages. Therefore, the Respondent Bank could not have proceeded against the garages also. The Ld. Presiding Officer considered all these contentions raised by the Applicants and disregarded them and arrived at the conclusion that the exclusion of the garages does not in any way affect the borrowers and they were aware of what was the property mortgaged. It was also contended that the bank had subsequently produced evidence to indicate that a person who had signed the notice was, in fact, an authorised officer of the bank and therefore, that objection was also overruled. The property was ultimately sold for a sum of ₹10.24 crores in the auction sale that was conducted on 16.09.2023 which was conducted as per auction sale notice dated 25.08.2023. The Appellants had also raised the contention that the property was sold for a lesser amount and that proper valuation was not done. An amendment application was moved in the S.A. but even though there was an observation by the Ld. Presiding Officer which would be taken up prolonged with the matter, it was not taken up for consideration neither was it pressed by the Counsel who appeared for the Applicants before the D.R.T. nor considered by the Ld. Presiding Officer in the impugned order. The Appellants are aggrieved and hence, in appeal. In order to entertain the appeal, the Appellants will have to first cross the hurdle of making the mandatory pre-deposit under Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the Appellants have a very good prima facie case. It is also contended that they are facing
