contemplate to detail the same in their sale notice. 1st respondent bank through its Authorised officer was not able to explain their actions with regard to description of the immovable property which they contemplated to bring to sale and were also not able to answer as to how and why, for recovery of a sum of Rs.50 lakhs, as claimed in their sale notice, they intended to bring the property for sale at Rs.1.60 crores when the property is severable either shop room wise or atleast floor wise and bring only that much of a portion that would satisfy their claim. It appears that it is a clear case of excessive execution when the property can be distinguishably severable. The non description of existing extent of sq.ft for bringing in more bidders is fatal to the very sale notice itself, since non-description of a particular extent of sq.ft will dissuade bidders from participating in the auction, whereas if a detailed description is caused, it would have been for more number of bidders to come at the alleged price contemplated to be sold. However the sale notice is short of such vital details of the construction as well as the existence of corporate tenants in the premises. The non-mentioning of all these vital details would make the sale notice itself susceptible to challenge and the applicant have rightly pointed out the same. During the course of hearing, Ld.Counsel for applicant had submitted that in continuation of their readiness for compliance of any interim order, they are also ready and willing to deposit the money due and payable to the respondent bank in terms of their sale notice claim and in fact applicant had deposited so. It is also submitted that owing to the pendency of this litigation, the amounts were not adjusted and are awaiting for the orders of this Tribunal.
