Under such circumstances, respondent proceeded with issuing fresh sale notice dated 79.07.2022 fixing the auction sale proceedings on 26.O8.2022, which is the subject matter of the present SA. Respondent No.2 was the successful bidder in the auction held on 26.08.2022. Upon receipt of 25o/o of bid amount, sale confirmation letter was issued advising the bidder to pay balance 75% by 27.O9.2022. However, at the requests of 2nd respondent, respondent granted time in two spells for depositing 75o/o of bid amount. The balance bid amount was deposited by the 2nd respondent on 77.77.2022 before the expiry of extended time limit. The respondent never took signatures on blank documents. The requests for OTS were not considered as the same do not fall within the framework of the RBI guidelines/bank norms. Hence, no grievance can be made out in respect of OTS proposals. Respondent bank has given redemption notice on t9.O7.2Ot7.If a Rule 8(6) notice is given at the time of issuance of initial sale notice, no such notice is required for subsequent sale notices. In the instant case, three sale notices were issued and applicants were havjng knowledge about the sale notices. Having more than 30 days knowledge from 2018 onwards, the borrower cannot plead redemption notice as a ground. As per setued law, the present sale notice being third one, the paper publication/service of sale notices periodically, are sufficient to futfit the object of Sections 13(8) and Rule 9(1) of the Act and the Rules. The applicants failed to deposit Rs.47,50,000/- as per the orders dated L3.09.2022 in 1A.862/2022 in the SA. Hence, the respondent bank has righ y registered the sale certificate. Respondent bank relies on the judgement of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.t4. g4t3/2O2O in
