submits that, due to the Applicant's continued resistance and refusal to vacate, the Bank was compelled to invoke Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and obtained appropriate orders from the jurisdictional Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.4B of 2025 for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the residence. It contends that the Applicant's challenge to these Section 14-based proceedings is legally barred because the earlier possession Notice under Section 13(4) has never been directly or timely challenged, relying on settled decisions of the Telangana High Court such as G. Anil Chand v. Authorised Officer, Manipal Housing and Tulsi Rocks Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of India to hold that Section 14-driven possession orders stand on the footing of a valid Section 13(4) notice and cannot be attacked in a vacuum. The Bank also reFutes all allegations of illegality, arbitrariness, and violation of principles of natural justice, asserting that due process was followed at every stage-including service of notices, opportunity to be heard, affixation, and publication-before taking symbolic and thereafter physical possession. It further contends that the Applicant has suppressed material facts, acknowledged receipt of the relevant notices, and is now seeking to misuse the legal process to stall recovery. The Respondent Bank, therefore, prays for dismissal of the SA with costs in the interest of justice.
