publications and photographic evidence, which are annexed at pages 18 to 20 of the typed set filed by the Bank, to rebut the said allegation. It is also an admitted fact that the Applicants have produced a copy of the Possession Notice along with the S.A., which, according to them, is the notice served upon them by the Defendant Bank. However, upon comparing the copy of the Possession Notice produced by the Applicants with the original Possession Notice produced by the Defendant Bank, this Tribunal finds that the copy relied upon by the Applicants contains Survey No. 167/B, whereas the said survey number does not find place in the original Possession Notice produced by the Defendant Bank. The Defendant Bank has not furnished any explanation regarding this discrepancy. Such inconsistency in the contents of the documents, both of which are stated to relate to the same Possession Notice, creates doubt as to the exact contents of the notice served upon the Applicants. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation from the Defendant Bank, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the Defendant Bank has not satisfactorily established strict compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under the SARFAESI Act while issuing the Possession Notice. Before parting with this issue, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to observe that the Defendant Bank, being a secured creditor exercising statutory powers under the SARFAESI Act, is expected to maintain utmost accuracy, consistency, and transparency in all statutory notices and documents issued to borrowers as well as in the records produced before judicial forums. The Defendant Bank shall ensure that the documents served upon the borrowers and those produced before this Tribunal are true, complete, and consistent in all material particulars. Any unexplained discrepancy or inconsistency in such documents is liable to undermine the fairness and credibility of the statutory enforcement process.
