In response, the defendants appeared and filed counter affidavit stated that the defendant is a proprietorship firm and in need of funds for business the proprietor Sunita Devi approached the bank for financial assistance. The bank agreed to extend bank guarantee of Rs.40 lakh cash credit facility of Rs.11 lakh and term loan of rS.5.50 lakh for purchase of DG set. Defendant had mortgaged two pieces of land details given at page 2 of counter affidavit. The defendants carrying on with its business and there was no problem in repayments of the installments. However during Covid-19 pandemic, the business of the defendant suffered a huge set back pursuant to which the defendant was not able to maintain the loan accounts. The accounts of the defendants were declared NPA and the CC account of the petitioner was freeze. Subsequently, a demand notice U/S 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 8.4.2021 directing the defendants to deposit an amount of Rs.50,59,972.75 on account of various loan accounts. The defendant vide letter dated 15.5.2021 submitted a representation before the bank requesting the BG loan account to be restructured and she be allowed to make payment of the outstanding in 60 monthly installments and also to unfreeze the CC loan account. The defendant did not receive any reply from the bank with respect to the representation and no action was taken by the bank. It is further stated that the auction notice dated 30.10.2021 was published in the daily newspaper putting the properties of the defendant on auction. The Demand notice dated was shown to be 10.5.2021, possession dated was shown to be 18.8.2021 and the outstanding amount was shown to be Rs.50,59,972.75. The reserve price was fixed at Rs.82,35,000/- and the date auction was fixed as 7.12.2021.. The bank have never taken the properties of the defendants in their possession and no notice to that effect has been served upon the defendant in accordance with rule 8(2A) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rule 2002 which mandates that the possession notice should be served upon the borrower through the electronic mode. Therefore the auction of the bank in putting the properties of the defendant for sale suffers from procedural lapses and is therefore bad in eyes of law. The defendant approached the Hon'ble Patna High Court as learned DRT, Patna was non -functional on account of the post of presiding Officer being vacant, whereby and where under vide order dated 15.2.2022 directed the defendant to pay Rs.10 lakh into two installments within seven days and thereafter the remaining amount in six equal installment as fixed by the bank. The defendants in compliance of the order dated 15.2.2022 deposited Rs.10 lakh within time, however due to financial disrupt could not pay the monthly installments as fixed by the bank. It is further stated that after declaration of the accounts as NPA the defendants has made payments of
