Respondent Rank issued possession notice dt.2o.o 1.2022 under Rule 8(i) of security Interest (Bnforcement) Rules, 2oo2 for taking possession of the schedule property and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd. post and it was duly served on the Applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgments which are filed by the Respondent Bank. The said notice was also published in English and Telugu daily newspapers on 23.0 r.2022 and copy of the said notice was also affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the photographs filed by the Respondent Bank. Thereafter the Respondent Bank obtained valuation report form the approved valuer of the bank and issued Tender cum Auction Notice d,t.1.6.o2.2022. According the Bank, the said salc notice was published in newspapers. As per the said notice, it is clear that eventhough the said notice was issued u/r g(6) of security interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2, auction date was also fixed in the said noticc and as per the said notice, auction was proposed to be conducted on 28.04.2022. so in the circumstances, it is clear that the Respondent Bank has not followed Rule 8(6)&9(1) of Securit5r Interest (Enforcement) rules, 2oo2 as no separate notice u/r g(6) by giving 30 days time to the borrower/applicant to redeem the propertJr, is issued. The Respondent Bank straightaway issued sale notice by fixing the date of auction on 29.04.2022 and published the said notice in newspapers. So, in the circumstances, it is quite clear that the Respondent Bank has not followed the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2oo2 in issuing the impugned Tender cum AuctionNotice d1.16.02.2022. In view of the above, the impugncd Sale Notice d is liable to be set aside. So, this point is answcred a
