emergency credit line for Rs.97,52,000/- and a further term loan of Rs.21,28,896/-. The applicant also admits that Mrs. Manmohan and his wife Lelitha Devi offered their properties as security and have executed a mortgage in favour of the respondent bank. The applicant contend that the remittances to the credit facilities were proper and only as the Covid -19 pandemic alarmingly crippled trade circle, the applicants receivables were delayed. Even at those times also the applicant had kept themselves a float and satisfied the bank of its credibility. It is also stated that one of the guarantors expired on 1.1.2020 and thereafter also the applicant had been managing the account. However, the applicant further admits that the repayment could not be promptly made due to Covid -19 Pandemic. It is stated that though the RBI had extended schemes and facilities in lieu of Covid-19 pandemic, the bank had not extended the same and declared the account as NPA. It is also admitted that the Bank issued the demand notice on 19.8.2021 which was followed by the possession notice dated 24.1.2022. It is stated that in the meanwhile impugned order is also obtained by the respondent to take actual possession of the premises. In regard to the measures, the applicant contends that the classification of account as NPA is not in accordance with master circular. It is also stated that in regard to the possession notice the respondent had not followed the procedure under Rule 8 and the signatory to the notice is not entitled to act as an Authorised officer. In the grounds to the SA, apart from reiterating the contentions as above, the applicant had further stated that the order passed by the Magistrate without taking note of the fact that the classification of account is not backed by reason and that there is non-compliance of Rule 8.
