i) The Applicant No.2 is one of the Directors of Applicant No.l. The Applicant No. 1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the application schedule properties. The Applicant No.l, during its course of business, availed credit facilities from the Respondent by mortgaging the application schedule properties. Thereafter, Applicants have been repaying the roan amounts with interest from time to time. While so, during the year 2O19, the Respondent all of a sudden initiated SARFAESI measures by issuing Demand Notice dt.09.05.2o19, demanding the Applicants to pay an amount of Rs.28,54,522 l-. In response, the Applicant No.2 submitted objections and refuted the allegations made by the Respondent vide his reply dt.20.06.2019. But, the Respondent issued Possession Notice dt.03.08.2oL9 claiming to have taken possession of the application schedule properties. Thereafter, the Respondent obtained Warrant of Commission in Crl.M.p. No.7Z4l2Ol9 dated, 23.LO.2019, on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, for taking physical possession of the application schedule properties. Challenging the said measures, the Appticants frled SA.No.379/2OI9 before the Tribunal. However, said SA was dismissed by the Tribuna-l vide order dt.t4.Og.2o23. Thereafter, the Applicants approached the Respondent for settlement of the dues _-."--and.requested to furnishstatementof account but, in vain.The . ,'"-;r.Respotrdentissued two notices, un-dated, underRule 6(2) & g(6) of tfrg.$eculi$, Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, in respect of the il: - 6.r. afficationr.l:,schedule properties. Thereafter, the Advocate :l B 0qnp,Affiioneg,dffixed a notice dt.L4.tr.2o24 on the outer door of
