M. Jaichandren J.

1. Since the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed.

2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.

3. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners had submitted that the impugned e-auction sale notices, issued by the authorised officers of the respondent banks concerned, are arbitrary, illegal and void. The terms and conditions prescribed in the e-auction sale notices in question are not in tune with the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The procedures prescribed under the Rules, especially, those which are enshrined in Rule 8 of the said Rules, have not been followed by the authorised officers of the respondent banks concerned, while issuing the impugned e-auction sale notices.

4. It had been further submitted that a number of onerous terms have been incorporated in the impugned e-auction sale notices, including the requirement of digital signatures. It had also been stipulated that the respondent banks and the authorities concerned cannot be held liable for the discrepancies or irregularities, if any, that may occur during the