respondent bank against the fraudulent transactions, the names of applicants have been featured. Ld.Counsel further submitted that respondent bank did not file any of the other alleged police complaint in support of their contentions that the funds are transferred into different entities, which are manned or governed by applicants herein. A mere bald allegation that applicants are also hand in glove with the 2nd respondent, is not tenable under law and it therefore concludes that unless 1st respondent bank establishes its debt as recoverable and legally enforceable, the SARFAESI actions cannot be continued and applicants are insisting for an order on the same, since applicants are made to approach this Tribunal every time a sale notice is slapped upon them. This is already the 4th sale notice and applicants are made to run to the Tribunal with the same contention while 1st respondent bank is simply filing the counter stating that the sale notice has become infructuous for want of bidders without answering the contentions of applicants herein. Ld.Counsel for applicants further submit that respondent bank has not come up with any tenable reason or evidenced any documents to say that 1st respondent bank is entitled to proceed for recovery of fraudulent collusive amounts debited to the principal borrower’s account from the guarantors. There is no iota of evidence to show that applicants are part and parcel of the alleged fraud or to show that the funds availed by the 2nd respondent are in any way for lawful business transactions. It is not explained by the 1st respondent bank, even in their counter, as to how they had permitted withdrawal of Rs.9.5 crores when the sanction itself is only to an extent of Rs.8.95 crores. They had neither answered that issue nor explained as to how they are entitled to recover moneys beyond the sanction,
