The Applicant availed mortgage loan of Rs.40 lakhs and term loan of Rs.20 lakhs from the Respondent in the year 2OO9 from the Respondent for development of business and the Applicant created mortgage in respect of the schedule property to secure the said loan facilities. After availing the loan facilities, due to Covid-19,the Applicant committed default due as the educational institutions of the Applicant were closed for two years. The Applicant requested the Respondent to regularize t}:,.e loan account by receiving the overdue amount but without considering the same, Respondent classified the loan account as NPA without following the RBI guidelines. Without issuing demand notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.07.1O.2O2t and the said notice was not served on the Applicant and the said notice was not published in two daily newspapers and not afhxed on the schedule property. While things stood thus, suddenly, one advocate commissioner came to the scheduleproperty and tried to take physical possession of the property and given a copy of the notice dt. 10.1 1.2023 and the description of the property was wrongly mentioned in the Crl.M.P.No.2431 123. Thereafter, during the pendency of the SA, the Respondent proceeded further and published the E-auction sale notice dt.12.O6.2O24 and the said sale notice was not served on the Applicant and the same was not affixed on the schedule property. The Respondent failed to fqllow Rule 8(6)&9(1) of Rules, 2OO2. Tt.e Respondent tain valuation of the schedule property and the reserve price .,1'"C$etli$tfi|\W.Hence the SA. s .* .': 3 J Tt1fiFTfitla"rit\Uu"" F.. l ir.atheir Replv and AdditionalReplvdenving all the adverse all"rgati$.r,Is made in the SA and contended that the Applicant e- or Rs'4o'7o'6tor' t" the vear 2011 and subsequentrv Wttffi
