1O. To substantiate their contention, Respondent filed material documents along with the Reply liled by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.16.08.2023 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others as evidenced by the postal track reports liled by the Respondent and the said notice was also published in two daily newspapers. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicant. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.16.08.2024 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others through Regd.post as evidenced by the postal acknowledgements filed by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was affixed on the schedule property as evidenced by the copy of photograph filed by the Bank. Thus the Respondent has scrupulously followed Rule 8(1X2) of Rules, 2OO2 in issuing possession notice dt.16.08.2024 u/s 13(a) of the Act. Thereafter, the Respondent issued Pre-sale Notice dt.30.08.2024 for giving an opportunity to the borrower/mortgagor to redeem the secured asset by paying the entire outstanding dues within 3O days and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and the same was duly served on the Applicant and the said notice was published in two daily newspapers as evidenced by the documents filed by the Bank.. Thus the bank has scrupulously followed the procedure in issuing the Pre-Sale Notice dt.30.08.2024 u/s 13(g) of the Act, 2OO2 and so, the said notice is perfectly legal and valid. Thereafter, the bank proceeded further and issued various sale notices including the final sale notice dt.2I.O4.2O25 for conducting auction of the schedule property, however the proposed auction was not materialized in view of the this Tribunal. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour and against the Applicant.
