Ilven though the Respondent Bank in its Reply statement contended that, it has served the Demand Notice and Possession Notice to the Applicant and affixed the Possession Notice on the schedule property and thereafter published the Possession Notice in 'Hans India, and ,Namaste Terangana, newspapers dated 29'r1.2022, the Respondent Bank has neither liled postar rcccipts/acknowledgements towards service of Demand Notice u/s. r3(2) & Possession Notice u/s.13(a) of the SARFAESI Act on the Applicant nor has filed any document/photograph depicting affixture of possession Notice on the schedule property nor has filed paper publications to establish publication of Possession Notice' The Respondent Bank has failed to establish the due compliance of sec.13(2) & Sec.13(4) SARFAESI Act, r/w. Rule 8(1) & (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2, while issuing Demand Notice and Possession Notice' so, in the absence of materiar documents estabrishing due compliance of the procedure laid down under the SARFAESI Act, by the Respondent Bank, I am constrained to hold that, the Demand Notice dt. 20'o9.2022, issued u/s.13(2) and the possession Notice dt.24.tr.2022, issued tt/s'13(4) in respect of the application schedule property, including the action of the Respondent Bank for taking physical possession of the schedule property u/s'14 of the SARFAESI Act are liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Applicant and against the Respondent Bank.
