24.O4.2023,andRecoveryCertificateNo.164of2023wasissuedon t4.0g.2023. It is therespondent'scase that, despitehaving knowledge of theproceedings,the applicantintentionally abstained from participating,remained aware of the developments,and ultimately failed to dischargethe decretal amount'As regards statutory compliance,the respondent states that all mandatory procedures under the SARFAESIAct were duly followed'A demand notice under Section13(2) dated 03.09,2019 was issued and served upon the applicant andguarantors on 06.09.2019'Thereafter, possession notice dated 08.11.2019was servdand also publishedin Telugu and Englishnewspaperson 14.11.2019, apartfrom being affixed on thesecuredasset. Subsequently, a 30-day sale notice dated 26.10.2023 andan e-auction sale notice dated 16'12'2023 fixing the auction on25.01'2024 were issued and sent through registeredpost. Thoughsomenotices were returned with the endorsement"left fromaddress," the respondent asserts that they were dispatched to theaddressesfurnished by the applicant and guarantors at the time of availing theloan. The notices were also published in newspapers and affixed at theproperty site' The respondent further contendsthat the applicant has deliberately suppressed material facts andraised falseand frivolous allegations only to secure interimprotection and delay recovery proceedings. It is submitted that thepetitioner's allegations regardingexcessive interest charges are unsupportedby particularsor evidence,whereas the bank has alreadyproducedstatementsof account, notices,postal receipts, acknowledgements,newspaper publications,valuation reports, and other relevantdocuments before the Tribunal. Hence, SA is liable to be dismissed.
