interest itself is in serious dispute and the Respondent has failed to establish any valid creation of security interest under the SARFAESI Act, the original possession notice dated 16.07.2015 was already set aside by this Hon’ble Tribunal in S.A. 323/2015 and the Measures have been initiated against a deceased guarantor, which is a jurisdictional nullity and also Fraudulent correction and misuse of the order dated 08.11.2021 passed under Section 14 vitiates all subsequent steps. Unless protected by an interim stay, the Respondent may proceed with the auction sale in violation of law and in disregard of pending proceedings including O.A.311/2016 and C.C. No.1/2017, where the validity of documents is under adjudication. The balance of convenience is wholly in favour of granting stay because the petitioner had already made payments/ appropriations aggregating to Rs.2,82,25,761/-, exceeding the alleged claim. The Respondent has suppressed material facts, including credits received. The Respondent has fixed an arbitrary and undervalued reserve price without following Rule 8(5) and 9. If interim stay is not granted, the petiiotner will lose the secured property irreversibly Loss of property will directly affect the Applicant’s livelihood. On the other hand, the Respondent will not be prejudiced by grant of interim stay, as substantial sums have already been paid and appropriated.
