neither the other two properties nor the securities nor the utilisation of loan funds was recorded with CERSAI, which does not enable the respondent bank as secured creditor to proceed under SARFAESI in view of the embargo as laid down under Sec.26D of the Securitisation Act, which is made mandatory now for the secured creditor, to register with CERSAI, in case they wanted to proceed and determine their mortgage rights under SARFAESI. Ld.Counsel submits that since respondent bank had filed in their counter and typed set of documents, the CERSAI registration, with regard to only one property, it is obvious that their SARFAESI actions, against the other two properties is not valid under law and hence their actions are liable to be set aside. Ld.Counsel for applicants submits that no sale had taken place on the scheduled date for want of bidders and that respondent bank has issued yet another sale notice even during the pendency of the present SA and therefore applicants may be provided with an opportunity to file an amendment petition in the present SA to change their cause of action for challenging the fresh sale notice, since the contention of applicants would continue to be the same even for the fresh sale notice. Ld.Counsel further reiterated his representations submitting that pursuant to judgments of Kerala High Court and Karnataka High Court, amendments to the pleadings in SA are being permitted for a new cause of action and therefore may be provided with a similar opportunity to amend their cause of action in the present SA and lay a challenge to the fresh sale notice issued by the respondent bank for recovery of its due.
