L4. It is also an admitted fact, as stated supra, that the 1st respondent Bank has only 2.g2o/o of share in the consortium and in the same ratio it has received amounts rearized in the SARFAESI Act Proceedings and arso in IBC proceedings initiated before the concerned Authorities. The learned counsel for the Appellant has drawn attention to the details given in tabular form in the written arguments evidencing that the lst respondent was paid its share of 2.82o/o from the amounts earrier rearized in SARFAESI proceedings and IBC Proceedings and therefore, he contends that the 1.t respondent Bank cannot claim more than its entiued share of 2.g2o/o. By taking the same into consideration, even if the attached property in the present case is disposed of, the 1't respondent Bank cannot get more than 2.820/o of share. The learned Recovery otficer instead of calling for market value of the share of the 4th respondent in the joint property and without giving an opportunity to the 2nd respondent company to deposit 2.820/o share of amount out of the market value crystallized, erroneously ordered for attachment of the entire joint property including the Appellant's share for the purpose of conducting the sale of the same. As contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant, had any opportunity been given to the 2nd respondent Company by the learned Recovery Officer to deposit the share of 2.82o/o of the lst respondent Bank, it might have deposited the said 2.82o/o out of the market value of the 4th respondent,s share in the joint property to conclude the litigation. I find force in the argument since the learned Recovery Officer has not afforded anv such
