amount of debt due is shown only in the proclamation dated 13.04.2007 which has not been challenged in any of the three appeals filed by the CDs. It will now have to be examined whether the mentioning of a higher amount as the debt due in the sale proclamation would nullify it. It is pertinent to note that the CDs had themselves filed M.A. No. 13 of 2000 and got the Recovery Certificate rectified vide order dated 25.02.2002. Dissatisfied b y the order, the CDs had also preferred an appeal before this Tribunal as Appeal No. 92 of 2002 which was dismissed, at the threshold for not depositing the amount directed to be deposited by this Tribunal. Hence, the CDs were aware of the amount that was due, as debt from them. Despite knowing, the CDs did not raise any objection concerning the proclamation for sale. They had challenged this only in the appeals filed by them, and that too, the challenge was to the order dated 04.04.2007 wherein the Ld. Recovery Officer had directed the issuance of the proclamation of sale, and not the actual proclamation of sale, dated 13.04.2007. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in L & T Housing Finance Limited vs. Trishul Developers & Ano. (2020) 10 SCC 659 held that unless the debtor can show any substantial prejudice was caused on account of the procedural lapses as prescribed under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, still with the caveat that it always depends upon the facts of each case to decipher if any, being because there cannot be a straitjacket formula which can be uniformly followed in all the transactions. Even if the mistake in mentioning the amount of debt in the sale proclamation is to be taken as an error, it has to be observed given the above-cited decision, that the technical defect
