dt.2o.O4.2022, issued by rhe Respondent Bank u/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. In fact, the Appricant sent its objections to the said Demand Notice vide letter dt.05.0 5.2022. It is the contention of the Applicant that the Respondent Bank has faiied to give a reasonable reply to the said objections. The Applicant itself filed a copy of the reply dt.23.O5.2022, issued by the Respondent Bank for the objections raised by the Appricant and from a perusal of the said reply, it is clearly stated by the Respondent Bank that, the Applicant had not informed about the closure of the unit and has not taken consent of the Bank lor sale of machinery and stock, which are hypothecated to the Bank and as such the Respondent Bank has demanded entire 10an outstanding by issuing Demand Notice dt.20.04.2022. The Applicant did not lile any document to show that it has taken consent from the Respondent Bank before selling the machinery and stocks, which are hypothecated to the Respondent Bank. So, it cannot be said that the Respondent Bank has failed to give a reasonable reply to the objections raised by the Applicant for issuance of Demand Notice. As regards the contention of the Applicant that the Respondent Bank has failed to serve possession Notice dt.25.1o.2o22 and has also failed to affix the said notice on the schedule property, including publication of the said notice in two newspapers is concerned, as stated supra, the Respondent Bank despite service of notice did not choose to controvert the version of the Applicant by appearing before this Tribunal and the Respondent Bank remained ex-parte. In the absence of any material proof for compliance of Rule 8(1) & (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2, by the Respondent Bank while issuing the possession Notice ,"^,r,.rr*...-..$'25'lo'2o22u/s'13(4)of the SARFAESIAct, I am constrainedto hold : d'+j: i aI*,T lhe said Possession Notice dt.2s. ro.2o22 is liable to be set-aside. ..,:..-:.-: SoI -$i point is answered in lavour of the Applicant. : ' :i' t1.4'- 7
