It is stated that the authorized officer of the respondent bank sold the securedproperty atan amount of Rs.2,05,67,000/-. It is stated that the sale noticewas issued on Lf.08.2022 and the auctiontookplace on16.09.2022 where the respondent No.3 was declaredas the highest bidder for a bid amount ofRs.2,05.57,000/- and deposited lOyo earnestmoney onthe sameday and ultimately on 23.12.2022paid the balance75olo amount of Rs.L,54,25,?401-which was also communicated to therespondent bankvide a letter dated 23.f2,2O22 and therespondentbankafter payment of the entire bid amount issuedsale certificate on 19.06.2023. Auctionpurchaser hasprayed thathe shouldbe permitted to utillze the secured asset. SA applicants have filedaffidavit in reply to the affidavit in oppositionof therespondent No.3,auction purchaser contending inter alia thatthe petitionis vexatious and has no merit. It is stated that respondentNo.3 despitebeing aware of the SARFAESIproceedingsand order of High Court beingpassed on the date of auctionin the subject matterhas oPted to purchase the propertyby taking a loanviolating all the prevaillng laws' It is stated that thereis a Ploybetweenthe respondents,interveners. It is stated that theaction of the respondentNo'3 willprove that theauction purchaser in collusion with the respondent bankalong with other interveners wants tograb theproperty at an undervalued pricein thegarb ofpublic auction which is not only in violation of SARFAESI Act butalso violating the restraining orders of the Hon'bleHigh Courtand this Learned Tribunal. It is stated thatfrom a letter dated16.06.2023 issued by the respondentbank it appears that the added respondentNo.3 haspaid25o/oof bid price to the respondentbank by29.09,2022but the respondent bankhas already confirmedthe sale vide
