classified as non-performing assets (NPA) on 30/03/2003. It is contended that the demand notice purportedly issued on 20/11/2003 under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act demanding a sum of ₹4,06,242.96 was never served on the Appellant. It is also contended that consequent to the account being classified as NPA, the bank could not have debited interest. In violation of that, the bank kept on debiting interest accrued even after the classification of the account as NPA. Moreover, it is also contended that the notice does not indicate that it is a demand notice issued under section 13(2). The bank did not take any action for almost 7 years and after that, issued a possession notice on 05/08/2010 to take symbolic possession of the property mentioning the outstanding amount as ₹3,52,081.96 as of 31/07/2010. It is contended that the notice was not published as required under Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. This would indicate that despite the account being classified as NPA, the Appellant continued to make payments towards the debt and the bank also credited those payments made by the Appellant. Thereafter the bank published its sale notice on 12/09/2011 intending to sell the property by public auction on 20/10/2011. The sale notice however indicates the outstanding amount mentioned in the demand notice. The secured asset was sold for a sum of ₹26,51,000/-and the Sale Certificate was issued in favour of the 2nd Respondent on 09/11/2011. The Appellant was never informed about the sale. The excess amount received by the bank was also not paid to the Appellant. The sale was conducted without giving the mandatory 30-day notice to the Appellant. The Appellant filed S.A. No. 23 of 2013 before the D.R.T. challenging all the Sarfaesi measures till then, and the same was
