This application is resisted by the Respondent by liling its Reply Statement. The contentions of the Respondent Bank, in brief, are that, the Applicant after availing credit facilities, did not conduct the loan account as per the terms of sanction and the loan account became NPA. The Respondent Bank issued Demand Notice dt.31.OT.2OlB u/s. 13(2) and the possession Notice dt. 14.1 2.2018 u/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and both the notices were served on the Applicant and guarantors. The possession Notice was affixed on the schedule property and was also published in two newspapers. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank obtained orders of appointment of Advocate Commissioner from the Ld. CMM, Nampally in Crl.Mp.No.72l2Ol9 for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r and when the Advocate Commissioner issued notice dt.06.0g.2olg, the Applicant filed SA.No.27612019 before this Tribunal and this Tribunal dismissed the said SA with a speaking order. Due to pandemic, fresh steps for taking physical possession were not taken. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank obtained frgsh orders of appointment of Advocate ln the schedule property:' and the Applicant j.,again approached this Tribunal by filing ,tr O.f"fr"h,,i+rn$o, the,hespondent prayed for ,': dismissal of the pres&t s'. u rruil (u(rt : ,
