challenging the Auction Sale Notice dt.O8.04.2O22 issued by the Respondent bank in respect of theschedule property. After elaborate enquiry, the said SA was dismissed vide orders dt.ll.lO.2O23 holding that the bank hasmeticulously followed the procedure in issuing all the relevant notices while proceeding against the schedule propert5r. So, in the present SA, the Applicants cannot re-agitate regarding the validity or otherwise of the demand notice and possession issued by the bank as the said notices are upheld the earlier SA filed by the Applicants. The present SA is filed challenging the impugned Sale Notice dt.27.IO.2023 issued by the Respondent bank for conducting auction of the schedule property. During the course of arguments, both the Ld.Counsel submitted that no auction was conducted in pursuance of the impugned Sale Notice dt.27.IO.2O23. So nothing survives in the SA for adjudication regarding the validity or otherwise of the said sale notice issued by the Bank. So, suffice, if a direction is given to the Respondent Bank to scrupulously follow the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing fresh sale notice to the Applicants for conducting auction of the schedule property. So this point is answered accordingly.
