Thank you Uday for your comprehensive reply!
The 13(2) notice sent to the old address was returned notated "not at address". Nothing was affixed at the secured premises and the first time we came to know about Sarfaesi proceedings was when people arrived with symbolic possession notice to affix at the premises. The paper advertisements were given, again with the old address, which we did not realise since the bank was carrying on with us separately with negotiations.
We will take your advice and comply with the DRT order, but does this not defeat the purpose when the bank receives over 85% of the due amount without even the case being adjudicated? And when prima facie violations of due process are evident?
You also state that "The viloations done by the bank will necessarily make the DRT to order for starting the process afresh." What does this mean? That the bank will now issue 8(6) and 9(1) for the balance of 12% due since 13(2) and 13(4) violations are beyond the 45 day limit and hence cannot be considered by the Tribunals?
Can a bank unilaterally extend the time period for the bidder to pay the remaining 75% of the bid amount by another 15 days (total of a month)?
As of this writing, for whatever reason, all Sarfaesi related matters are sent only to the old address, even though we had brought this to the attention of the bank.
Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the value of the property is about 4 times the amount due and the bank had been pressuring us to sell it to a particular builder, which we had been opposing.
I am truly thankful to this site and its members. I only wish I had stumbled on this earlier. I realize that just hiring a competent high court lawyer is not enough. The individual has to be well versed in DRT matters also. Thanks again.