It is further submitted that after the discharge of entire liabilities, the 2nd Defendant, failed to provide fresh loan facilities to the Applicant's group concerns as promised earlier to the Applicant, despite the fact that the Applicant had registered subsequent MODTD as per the instructions of the 2nd Respondent Bank vide document no. 170/2016 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sivakasi, the 1st Respondent Bank, without taking into account of legal consequences, without considering the Applicant's settlement and discharge and without valid mortgage, went on further and issued Possession Notices dated 01.02.2016 u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act in a hasty manner after having lost the status of secured creditor. It is strange to enforce the liabilities against the properties which were not the security interest. The 1st Respondent Bank omitted the 'F' schedule property which was under their occupation on the strength of lease deed. The Applicant's group concerns approached the Respondent Bank and requested to drop further proceedings. The Respondent Bank accepted and expressed that the Possession Notices dated 01.02.2016 were issued inadvertently. But, the Respondent Bank, despite the request, proceeded further and issued four Sale Notices dated 29.06.2016, 21.06.2017, 10.11.2017 and 26.09.2018 in furtherance to the above said Possession Notice dated 01.02.2016, subsequent to the registered discharge receipt bearing document no. 169/2016 dated 12.01.2016. Further, the Respondent Bank has also filed a suit for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 11,43,66,598.33ps in OA No. 890/2017 before this Hon'ble Tribunal and the same is pending for adjudication.
