In the Reply filed by the lst Respondent bank, the 1st Respondent bank has categorically taken a plea that after conducting auction, surplus sale proceeds aiter adjusting to the loan account, were deposited in the savings accounr ol the Applicants and the said amount was withdrawn by the Applicants. No rejoinder is Iiled by the Applicants challenging the said version of the lst Respondent bank. So, in the circumstances, it is clear that the Applicants by accepting the auction conducted by the 1st Respondent bank in respect of the schedule property, withdrawn the surplus amount out of the sale consideration of the schedule property. Ld. Counsel for the lst Respondent bank argued that the auction conducted by the 1st Respondent bank is in compliance with the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAEST Act, 2oo2 and Rules made thereunder and no violations are pointed out by the Applicants in conducting auction by the lstRespondent Bank and even, no steps are taken by the Applicants to challenge the said auction conducted by the lstRespondent Bank in respect of the schedule property, so, the auction once conducted in respect of the schedule property inpursuance to the sale noticeissued by the authorized officer of the secured creditor cannot be set aside. In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgmen t of Hon ble Supreme Court between Celtr LLp Vs, Mr,Sumorfi pro.sad Bafna ln Contempt Petitlon (C) NOS.1S8-tSg/2O24 tn Ctvil Appeat Nos.SS42_ 5543/2023, uthereln tt ts held as follouts:
