,,u,"run,r, which would evident from Annexure-R9. The contention of the Appellants is that the demand notice was not served as per the Securitization Act. The Respondent Bank has produced the demand notice as Annexure R-2 and the postal acknowledgments marked as Annexures-R3. The Appeilants after coming to know of the demand notice dated 19.09.2020 did not raise any objection. Moreover, the Appellants side did not go ahead to make repayment of the loan amount. As the Appellants failed to make repayment, the Respondent Bank issued the possession notice dated 11.01.2021. As per the postal acknowledgement, the possession Notice was sent to the Appellant side and same wourd be evident from Annexure-Rs. It is found that the Respondent Bank has caused paper publication of the Possession Notice in the..The New Sunday Express,,, an English Edition and '.Kannada prabha,, Kannada Edition on L7.0t.2021. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that the Borrower is chronic defaulter even prior to the date of the account belng classified as NpA and despite providing several opportunities, the Borrower faired to regurarise the roan account. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank also submitted that the security interest in the property in question is created by the Appeilants by executing a varid memorandum of deposit of tiue deeds and also deposited the tifle deeds with
