this Tribunal vide order dtd.20-06-22 has already held that "Perusal of Annex.A- 1 filed by the applicant reveals that bank had issued the notice dtd.20-05-22 (Page 19) in compliance of order dtd.0l-04-21 passed by ADM(F/R) Ghaziabad. Applicant had although annexed copy of order dtd. 0l-04-21 as Annex.A-2 however he has not sought any relief against the said order passed by ADM and has simply prayed to quash entire consequential action/proceedings taken in pursuance to or in furtherance of notice dtd. 20-05-22. The notice dtd.20-05-22 by which applicant was directed to hand over physical possession of the secured asset on 25-05 -22 has also become infructuous as no physical possession of the property has been taken on the said date. It was further held that "In the present case, it is apparent that applicant has not sought any specific relief against the order dtd.Ol-04-21 passed by ADM, Ghaziabad and have made an imprecise prayer to quash entire proceedings against him pursuant to notice dtd.2o-05-22. Thus, in view of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, since applicant has not made any specific prayer, no relief can be granted to him with regard to quashing entire consequential action/proceedings taken in pursuance to or in furtherance of notice dtd.20-0 5 -22."
