obtaining warrant for appointment of advocate commissioner. As already stated supra, the aucUon sale scheduled on 10.01.2025 pursuant to notice of sale dated 03.72.2024 was not conducted in view of compliance of conditional order passed by this Tribunat in IA.43/2025 dated 06.01.2025 in depositing the Rs.4,96,000/-. Accordingly, the SA concerning with the auction proceedings, valuation report and fixation of reserve price and other allied contentions become infructuous. Therefore, the grievances on this count need no considerauon for adjudication of the SA. As regards the alleged violation of provisions of Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2002, respondent bank placed enough material vide pages 5 to 54 annexed to the reply statement evidencing issuance and publication of demand notice and possession notice. It is not the case of the applicant that the demand notice or the possession notices were sent to a wrong address. A perusal of the postal registration receipts reveals that the address mentioned in those receipts/envelopes is one and the same as that of the one mentioned in the SA. Further, the authenticity of evidentiary material produced by the respondent bank has not been disputed or challenged by the applicant. Hence, the applicant failed to make out any valid ground for setting aside these notices. As regards, the advocate commissioner notice dated 23.12.2024, the same has been obtained by the respondent bank under the provisions of the Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and this Tribunal cannot interdict the same. In so far as the NpA classification, the applicant has not disputg4 the stand of (// ,/,/fr-,,.^t'r*'
