77, Notwithstandingoperation or otherwise of res judicata, tne ft respondent bankplaced material onrecord along withreply statement to establishservice of demand notice,possession notice, andpublication of thesame; and also proofof afflxture of possession notice on the secured asset. Thoughthe Applicantaverred that notices were not sent to the correctaddress where he had been residing, such averment is liablefor outright rejection especially keeping in view the admitted factthat the Applicantvisltedthe respondent bank on multiple occasionsfor settlementof accountand proposed OTS. The returned covers would show that thedemand notice was sent to three addresses ofthe Applicant and thereaftergot the noticepublished. Having left noinstructionsat the addresses furnished to the Bank, Applicant cannotnot be permitted to raise objection of non-affixture. Itis noticed from the materialthat one of the guarantors(S. Shariff)received thenotice.Possession notice dated 15.12.2015 was also sent to differentaddresses of the Applicant, affixed on secured asset andpublished inEnglish and Telugu newspapers on 17.12.2015. In view of the ampleproof, this Tribunal finds that the 1st respondent bank established compliance of Secs.13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, 2002 rcad with Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules of 2002.
