Respondent Bank and to secure the said loan facilities, he mortgaged his immovable property described in the application schedule. After availing the said loan facilities, he paid the loan instalments regularly for some time and however, later, due to covid-l9 pandemic and decrease in the students strength, he could not pay some overdue interest and also some instalments, which resulted in the classification of the loan account as NpA. Despite requests made by the Applicant for granting some time, the Respondent Bank initiated recovery process. After issuance of Demand Notice by the Respondent Bank, the Applicant paid Rs.2,00,000/-, out of which Rs.50,000/was paid subsequent to issuance of possession Notice. But, the Respondent Bank has not deducted Rs. 1,so,0 oo I - paid by the Applicant after issuance of Demand Notice, while issuing the Possession Notice. All of a sudden, the Advocate commissioner appointed by the Ld. cJM, warangal, along with Bank officials, visited the application schedule property to dispossess the Applicant from the subject property. The Demand Notice and the possession Notice dt.18.07.2021, were not property served on the Applicant and other parties to the 10an account. The possession Notice dt.1g.0 L.2021 was not affixed on the scheduie property and was arso not published in two newspapers. The Applicant has approached the Honble Highh court for the State of Terangana, challenging the said action ofthhe Respondent Bank by filing wp.No.79sr of 2022, wherein the Hon,ble High court directed the Appiicant to pay 1s%o of the dues and further directed the Applicant to approach this Tribunal within 30 days time. The Applicant had complied the directions of the Hon,ble High court. Hence, the SA.
