much earlier and therefore applicants are very well aware of the actions of the respondent bank and cannot now take a different stand stating that there is no clear 15 days notice on the 3rd respondent alone. Even otherwise, Ld.Counsel, submits that, as applicants did not contemplate to exercise their right of redemption, they cannot take a stand that there is not enough time for them to redeem the property. Such a plea would be applicable only if applicants attempt / contemplate to redeem the property and not otherwise. Whereas in the present case, applicants did not even comply with any interim order even after moving the SA and therefore there are no bonafides in the submissions made on behalf of applicants with regard to non - availability of clear 15 days from the date of service of sale notice to the date of scheduled sale. Submitting so, Ld.Counsel had demonstrated the further actions of the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice and submitted that there is no violation on the part of respondent bank and that the valuation is in accordance to the prevailing rates only, but however will obtain fresh valuation in a situation where respondent bank has to initiate fresh SARFAESI actions.
