applicant refused to receive the same as evidenced by the postal returned cover. Thus, there is a deemed service of demand notice on the applicant. Moreover, the respondent bank published the demand notice in the newspapers as evidenced by the paper publications filed by the respondent bank. As there is no compliance of the said demand notice, the respondent bank issued Possession notice dated 05.08.2024 to the applicant and the same is received by the applicant as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements. The said possession notice is affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the respondent bank, The possession notice is published in Telugu and English newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication. Thus, in the circumstances, it is clear that the respondent bank has followed the procedure laid down in Rule 8(1) and (2) of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in issuing impugned possession notice. So in the circumstances, I hold that the impugned possession notice dated 05.08.2024 is perfecfly legal and valid and it is binding on applicant. So I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the possession notice dated 05.08.2024 issued by the respondent. Hence SA is liable to be dismissed. This point is answered accordingly.
