evidences adduced by the defendant.Annexure 88 is a photocopy of the valuation report dated23.ll.2022 in respect of the schedule immovableproperty submitted by Shri C.S Vyasaraja, ME FIV, Consultant Engineer andRegistered Valuer (F 7951). The said valuer as a result of his appraisal and analysis, in hisconsideredopinionhas reported the fair market value of the schedule immovableproperty in the prevailing conditionwith the specifications mentioned therein at {1,78,54,000/-; theguideline value ofthe property at <1,22,24,880/-; the realisable market value at <1,60,68,600/- andthe distresssalevalueat <1,42,83,2001-. It may be noted that the reserveprice fixedin thesale notice dated 19.05.2023 in respect of the schedule immovablepropertywas {179l- lakhs andas reported by the defendant, the said property was sold in apublic e-auction for12391- lakhs. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 1" defendantauthorised officer ofthe defendant bank had not taken aproper valuation inrespect of theschedule immovable property and the silme was sold in a hurry for a throw awayprice as against the actual market value. However, the applicant has not disclosed as to whatwould beprevailing market value in respect of the schedule immovablepropertyas on that date.In the above premises, this Tribunal does not find any merit in such contentions raised by the applicant. Having failed to redeem the securedassetwithin the time as granted under the Act it is futile on the part of the applicant toraise unsustainable contentionsas against a sale conducted in accordance with theprovisions under the Act and the Rulesmade thereunder.
