receipt of demand notice, Applicants No.1&2 negotiated with the officials of the Respondents No.1&2 and offered to pay Rs.25 crores under OTS. But the Applicants could not pay the said OTS amount but they paid Rs.11,75,00,000/- out of Rs.25 crores of OTS amount. So, the Respondent No.2 initiated measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 by issuing common possession notice dt.75.O2.2020. Thereafter, Authorized Officer of the Respondent No.2 issued a notice for exercising the right of redemption u/s 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 dt.25.O2.2020 giving a last and final opportunity to the Applicants to redeem the secured assets within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Aggrieved by the measures initiated by the Respondents No.l&2, Applicants filed SA 7Ol2O2O on the file of this Hon'ble Tribunal and the same was allowed vide order dt.26.O4.2O22 by setting aside the auction conducted by the Respondents No.1&2. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 issued E Auction Sale Notice dt.3I.LO.2O22 for conducting auction of the schedule properties on 14.I2.2022. But the Respondents No.1&2 have not foilowed the procedure contemplated under Rule 8&9 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2 r/w Sectionl3(S) of the Act,2OO2. The impugned sale notice was not published in two leading newspapers and not affixed on the schedule properties as stipulated u/r 8(6)&(7) of Rules ,2OO2.30 days sale notice was not issued before issuing the impugned auction sale notice. The Authortzed offi.cer ought to have appreciated that demand notice was not issued to the legal heirs of the deceased guarantor late Smt.Raj Kumari Agarwal. Ms.Vaishnavi Agarwat and Mr.Om Agarwal are the legal heirs oflate Rajkumari Agarwal and they filed O.S.No.13312O20 on the file of Hon'ble IV Sr.Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained statusquo order. Applicants No.2 to 5 have entered into agreement of 5!hgaparties to sell the schedule property and the said parties uit vide OS No.lOS l20 for specificperformance.
