Respondent as evidenced by the postal acknowledgement. when the Applicants submitted their objections in response to the demand notice issued by the Respondent bank, there is obligation on the part of the Respondent bank to consider the said objections and issue reply to the said objections. Even though, the said objections are submitted by the Applicants with a lapse of two months from the date of issuance of the demand notice, the Respondent did not bother to give reply to the said objections and without giving reply to the objections raised by the Applicants in response the demand notice, the Respondent bank straightaway issued the impinged possession notices and so, the said possession notices issued by the Respondent bank are not valid. When the specific contention of the Applicants is that the Respondent bank has not affixed the possession notices on the schedule property and the said notices are not published in newspapers, the Respondent bank is expected to file material documents to substantiate that they have followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 8(1)&(2) of securitylnterest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 in issuing the said possessionnotices. Even in the Reply filed bythe Respondent, there is no mention to the effect that the Respondenthas aflixed the possession notices on the schedule property and published the saidnotices in daily newspapers.
