To substantiate their contention, Respondent filed material documents. As per the said documents, it is crear that after crassifying the roan account of the Applicant as NPA, Respondent issued Demand notice dt.lz.lo.2o2z u/s 13(2) of the sARAFABsI act, 2oo2 andthe said notice was sent to the Applicants and the Applicants also admitted the receipt of the said demand notice. It is also admitted that after receipt of the demand notice, the Applicants paid a total sum of Rs. 1,03,300/- on different occasions. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.21.12.2023 uls 13(4) of the Act,2002 and sent the said notice to the Applicants and the said notice was personaly received by the Applicants as evidenced by their signature on the copy of the said notice filed by the Respondent Bank. The said possession notice was pubrished in Telugu and English daily newspapers on 26.12.2023 as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent and the said notice was arso affixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Respondent Bank. Thus the Respondent has dury followed the procedure as contemplated u/r 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2oo2 in issuing the impugned possession notice dt.21.r2.2028 u/s r3(a) of the SARFAESI Act,2002 for taking possession of the schedule property. So, the demand notice and possession notice issued by the Respondent valid.
