challenging Sarfaesi measures. Replies have been filed to the S.A. and the D.R.T. has observed that the matter will have to be adjudicated on its merits. It is pointed out that as of date, the outstanding dues is ₹1,00,56,218.90 and therefore, the appellants may be directed to deposit 50% of the said amount as pre-deposit for entertaining this appeal u/s 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. On considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the demand notice issued only in the name of the proprietorship which has no legal existence is prima facie questionable. Only a copy is marked to the rest of the appellants. Whether marking a copy would be sufficient to demand is an arguable question which will have to be decided by the D.R.T in the S.A. Since the notice is drawn only in the name of the proprietorship which is not a legal entity and cannot sue or be sued in its name. As regards the objections about the non-description of the designation and the name of the authorized officer it is to be held that it is curable and the respondent bank is at liberty to adduce evidence regarding the competence of the authorised officer to issue the demand notice. It is also relevant that the bank has not answered any of the objections which have been raised about the reply sent to the appellants on 04.07.2024. It is just an evasive reply which is doubtful of sufficient compliance u/s 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act. Moreover, even after sending the reply to the objections in the nine-pointer affidavit, it is stated that the borrowers have not raised any objections which is apparently false.
