That it sanctioned multiple credit facllities to the 2nd respondent, for which the applicant's late mother, Ms. Gandi Elizabeth, executed a personal guarantee and an equitable mortgage in favour of the bank. The respondent contends that the 2nd respondent defaulted in repayment, resulting in classification of the account as a NPA on 29.05.2022, and that a demand notice under Section 13(2) dated 06.1,O.2022 was duly issued. On continued default, the bank tssued a possession notice dated 15.04.2023 under Section 13(4), which was published in Nava Telangana Daily and Business Standard on 21,.04.2023. As there was no response from the 2nd respondent company, the bank issued a sale notice dated 15.12.2023 fixing an auction on 25-01.2024; the notice was published in Mana Telangana and The Hindu, but the auction failed for want of bidders. The respondent further asserts that it took physical possession of the secured assets by filing Crl.14.P.No.343 of 2024 and relies on the decisions in Trade We v. Indian Bank and Pradeep D. Kothari v. UTI Eank to support the contention that valid physical possession was taken. On these grounds the respondent bank prays for dlsmissal of the SA.
