under the SARFAESI Act illegal, and in support thereof placed reliance upon thejudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gajendra Sharma v. Union of India and the order of the Hon'ble NCLT, Mumbai inyes Bank v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises and Others. The learned counsel further contended that the Respondent had issued two separate demand notices, neither of which was served upon the Applicant. It is also contended that though the possession notice was issued on 04.t0.202t, the same was published only on 12.10.2021, which is beyond the period prescribed under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, and in support thereof reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Sunil Solvent Extraction Pvt. Ltd. and Others and the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Goverdhan Prasad v. Assam Gramina Vikas Bank. The learned counsel further contended that there was noncompliance with Section 26D of the SARFAESI Act as the Respondent failed to register the security interest with CERSAI, thereby rendering all subsequent proceedings commencing from the issuance of the demand notice illegal and void, and placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Jalgaon lanata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Another v. Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax (Nodal). On the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the SA and setting aside the measures initiated by the Respondent against the SA schedule property.
