(2) It was stated in the application that applicant No.1 is a proprietorship concern through applicant No.2 as its sole proprietor and applicant No.3 stood as a guarantor of applicant No.1 borrower in his personal capacity; that applicants had availed overall financial facilities to the tune of Rs.65 Lacs i.e., Cash Credit Limit of Rs.25 Lacs and two Term Loans of Rs.20 Lacs each from respondent No.1; that applicants were regularly deposited the EMIs in their loan account; that however, after paying substantial amount of EMIs, due to unforeseen financial crunch and difficulty in the business, certain EMIs were missed; that after deposit of substantial amount and after clearing the temporary deficiency the accounts were wrongly classified as NPA on 28.12.2016 in violation of Section 2(o) of the Act; that thereafter, respondent No.1 had issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 10.10.2016 demanding an amount of Rs.24,32,039/-, wherein no date of classification of loan account as NPA was ever mentioned; that thereafter, respondent No.1 issued another notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 18.04.2017 demanding an amount of Rs.52,72,247/-; that in the said notice also no date of classification of loan account as NPA was mentioned; that the said demand notice was never served upon applicants in compliance of Rule 3 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’ for brevity) as neither the said notice was served upon applicant through registered post nor it was affixed or published in the newspapers; that thereafter on 12.07.2017, respondent No.1 has issued possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act but the said notice was never served upon applicants as per Rules; that the mortgaged property, which is subject matter of the present SA has not been registered with the Central Registry as required under Section 26-D of the Act; that respondent No.1 had issued sale notice
