evidenced from acknowledgment cards filed along with typed set of documents. Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that despite receipt of Demand Notice, as borrowers did not come forward to repay the dues even after expiry of statutory period, respondent proceeded further and took symbolic possession on 03.08.2017. Possession Notice was sent to all parties (as evidenced from postal receipts), affixed at the conspicuous place of the secured asset and published in two newspapers viz., ‘Deccan Chronicle’ and ‘Dinakaran’ on 06.08.2017 as evidenced from the typed set of documents filed along with counter. Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that as the default of the borrower continued, respondent bank had proceeded further under Section 14 of the Act for obtaining physical possession of the property and filed necessary application before the District Collector, Thiruvallur, which was accordingly considered and orders were passed on 27.08.2022 directing concerned Revenue Officials to take physical possession of the property and hand over the same to Authorised Officer of respondent bank. It is the case of respondent bank that in that order dated 27.08.2022, it has been specifically mentioned that Mr. Yesu Gurusamy was present on 24.09.2019 being the date of first enquiry and hence it is not true to state that applicant was not aware of the proceedings. Ld. Counsel for respondent bank submitted that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent and prayed for passing necessary orders.
