1. The above Securitisation Applications have been filed by the Applicant under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 challenging the validity of the Possession Notices dated 14.7.2014 and the Sale Notice dated 28.10.2014 respectively issued by the respondent bank on various reasons and grounds set out thereunder. SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 2
2. The case of the Applicants, in brief, is as follows:- 2.1 The respondent by its sanction letter dated 24.9.2005 had sanctioned certain financial assistance to the first applicant and had got signed several documents in proforma and in blank. No opportunity whatsoever was given to peruse the documents and contents of the documents were not explained. Owing to the fact that the first applicant was transacting with the respondent bank ever since 1990, signatures were affixed on the proformas. Subsequent to the receipt of the notice from the bank the applicants realized that the proformas got signed have been unilaterally and arbitrarily filled in manifold for sustaining the claim. 2.2 The second and third applicants were at logger head with the respondent bank officials in respect of the transaction between the respondent and M/s SBQ Steels Ltd., and as a counterblast to the same, the respondent had invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and issued the demand notice dated 18.3.2014 claiming a sum of Rs.38,26,39,258.17, which was received by the first applicant on 20.3.2014 and on 28.3.2014 by the second and third applicants. 2.3 The 2nd and 3rd applicants being the Directors of M/s SBQ Steels Ltd., initiated legal proceedings against the Respondent herein for an illegal act committed by their officials with respect to their transactions with the respondent bank. The said M/s SBQ Steels Ltd had filed a Writ Petition before the Honble High Court in the first week of February, 2014 challenging the arbitrary, highhanded, illegal manner in which the respondent bank and its officials in sheer abuse of their powers had SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 3 frozen the account of M/s SBQ Steels and appropriated the amounts lying in the account. 2.4 Subsequent to the receipt of the notice, a reply was sent by the applicants herein to the respondent bank on 16.5.2014, which was to be treated as an objection under Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act. Subsequently another reply dated 19.5.2014 was also sent. But the respondent bank has not given any reply. 2.5 The notice issued by the respondent bank under Section 13(2) of the Act is not in accordance with the provisions of law and is bereft of details regarding default, reasons for classifying the account as a Non Performing Asset and hence is not a proper notice in the eyes of law. 2.6 The respondent bank has followed a premeditated course of action against the first applicant, which can be evident from the fact that it has been stated that the account has been classified as a NPA on 24.2.2014, whereas the respondent bank has issued recall notice on 12.2.2014 i.e., prior to the respondent bank classifying the account as a NPA and the applicants have never been informed about the classification of the account as a NPA. 2.7 The demand notice has to be withdrawn for the reason that inspite of repeated requests the respondent bank has failed to furnish an up-to- date statement of account in respect of the term loan and other accounts. 2.8 The amount arrived at by the respondent bank is highly exaggerated and interests has been charged at much higher rate than what was SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 4 agreed to. The respondent bank has failed to follow the guidelines of the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra (AIR 2001 SC 3095) and the penal interest and other charges have been compounded. 2.9 There are several wrong credits to the account which can be seen from the applicants request dated 26.12.2013, which was never acted upon. In fact the respondent bank have mentioned a limit of Rs.321 lakhs and Rs.449 lakhs towards terms loan, which is contrary to the letter of renewal of limits issued by the respondent bank on 9.3.2012. In these circumstances the respondent bank is expected to give complete details for verification by the first applicant. 2.10 The proformas in which signatures were obtained in blank have been unilaterally filled by the respondent bank by misutilising and interpolating and causing material alterations in the said papers so as to fasten the liability on the applicants. In fact, on may of the dates mentioned, the signatories who are alleged to have signed the letter were not available in the City of Chennai, which is in violation of principles of natural justice and because which the respondent bank has initiated actions under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 2.11 The description of the property mentioned in the schedule alleged to have been mortgaged in favour of the respondent bank, particularly the boundaries are incorrect and this shows that there was no valid mortgage or any valid security interest that could have been created over them. The discrepancy is so glaring and exposes the intention of the respondent bank of including certain properties, which even SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 5 according to the bank, could not and were not mortgaged in favour of the respondent bank. The said notice has been issued only with malafide intentions and motive. 2.12 In fact, to maintain cordial relationship the applicants had given a letter dated 22.4.2014, without prejudice to any of their rights, offering for a One Time Settlement, which was rejected by the respondent bank by their letter dated 30.4.2014, which clearly shows the intention of the respondent bank. 2.13 In fact, Prof. K. Rajagopalan of M/s Raj Associates (an Indian Bank empanelled valuer of repute) had given the valuation of the property belonging to the first appellant and Mr. Rajiv Rai, who pointed out that the land of the first applicant formed a part of larger extent of land and gave his valuation report, which was forwarded to the respondent bank with bonafide intentions to show that the description of the property was erroneous. The respondent bank had issued a show cause notice to the said valuer and is also victimizing the applicants by invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In any event, the property is yet to be identified by the respondent bank and the boundaries given in the schedule to the notice are erroneous and are incorrect. 2.14 The respondent bank is well aware of the financial difficulties being faced by the first applicant, which is primarily due to huge power cut in the State of Tamil Nadu for the last 5 years, continuous labour unrest, repeated lockouts, non sanction of need based additional working capital facilities and adhoc limits, delay in opening letters of credit, denial of NOC for bringing in a new lender / bank to jointly meet the SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 6 additional working capital needs and sale of windmill asset. The loss suffered by the first applicant left limited resources at its disposal for utilization to pay its debts. Despite all adversaries the first applicant approached the respondent for restructure of its loan, which was rejected by the respondent bank without considering the factors explained by the first applicant. The first applicant deserves a chance to restructure its debts, for such reason alone the impugned notice deserve to be recalled. 2.15 The claim of the respondent bank is barred by limitation and the account could not have become a NPA on 24.2.2014. The applicants were never informed about the classification of the account as a NPA. It is mentioned by the respondent bank that an acknowledgement was issued on 2.3.2013. The applicants deny the same and submit that there could not have been an acknowledgement on 2.3.2013 for the reason that the letter of renewal of limits was given only on 9.3.2012. The respondent bank never considered the request of the appellants for additional need based working capital facilities. 2.16 If all sanctions in the last six decades and amounts cleared, the current dues would amount to just 10% of the original principal and interest amount. Hence as per Section 31(j) of the SARFAESI Act the provisions of the Act do not apply and hence the notice of the respondent bank is wrong, invalid and needs to be recalled. 2.17 The notice of the respondent bank did not evidence any authorization provided by the bank to the signatory of the notice as an Authorised Officer of Indian Bank. Since no appropriate board resolution has SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 7 been provided, the notice is in violation of Rule 2 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and hence the same is invalid. The respondent bank has also not furnished the name and other particulars of the person who has been mentioned as Authorised Officer. 2.18 The first applicant has lost a sum of Rs.23.06 crores because of the callous and negligent attitude of the officers of the bank from time to time due to non release of funds and delay in releasing funds because of which future transactions became incapable of performance and fell through. In addition, the non-opening of LCs for purchase of raw materials on time and also wrongly calculating the number of usance days as per letter dated 21.5.2013 resulted in stoppage of the operation of the first applicant and also contributed to increasing loss and damages to plant and machinery. 2.19 While so, the respondent bank issued Possession Notice dated 14.7.2014 alleging the same amount as mentioned in Section 13(2) notice to be due and for an amount of Rs.38,26,39,285.17 together with further interest thereon from 18.3.2014. The respondent bank has not published the possession notice in newspapers which is a statutory requisite. 2.20 However, for the sake of maintaining cordial relations with the respondent, the applicants sent a letter dated 31.7.2014 revising the earlier offer sent by applicants by letter dated 22.4.2014 for one time settlement, which was also not agreed to. Finally, on 5.9.2014 gave another offer, which was confirmed by the respondent bank by their letter dated 11.9.2014. The applicants after great difficultly in SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 8 accumulating the finance paid a sum of Rs.30 lakhs to the respondent bank towards settlement. Considering the various efforts put in by the applicants in making the settlement happen, it cannot be said that the applicants had no intention to fulfill their side of the obligation. While things stood thus, the applicants were shocked to receive a notice dated 27.10.2014 unilaterally revoking the One Time Settlement. 2.21 Subsequently the respondent bank issued the sale notice dated 28.10.2014, which was received by the applicants on 29.10.2014. The respondent bank has failed to follow the procedure mandated and contemplated under the provisions of the sarfaesi act and the rules made thereunder and has wrongly classified the account of the applicants as NPA in violation of the RBI guidelines. The respondent bank has not considered the objections of the applicants as mandatorily required under Section 13(3-A) of the Act and a normal reply dated 29.5.2014 was sent and therefore the action of the respondent bank invoking Section 13(4) of Act is impermissible and is liable to be set aside. The respondent bank has not identified the property and has started to take possession of a property over which admittedly, they do not have any security interest. The respondent bank has failed to serve a notice of thirty days for sale of the properties and affix the sale notice on the conspicuous part of the secured asset, which is in clear violation of Rule 8(7) of the Rules. The respondent bank cannot arbitrarily revoke the One Time Settlement specifically when the applicants have already made a payment of Rs.30 lakhs towards the same. SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 9 2.22 It is thus prayed that the above SAs be allowed with costs.
3. The contentions of the Respondent Bank, in brief, as per its detailed Reply Statement are as under:- 3.1 The Respondent Bank filed its counter along with typed set of documents. At the outset each and every allegation, averment, statement, submission and contention of the applicants are denied and the applicants are put to strict proof. 3.2 The applicants have admitted having availed credit facilities from the respondent bank, signing the loan documents in favour of the respondent bank, creation of security interest in favour of the respondent bank by way of mortgage in respect of the schedule properties, however the applicants are disputing the boundaries. The description of the property mentioned in the registered memorandum completely tallies with the description of the property mentioned in the possession notice. 3.3 The respondent bank has sent a detailed reply to the representation on 29.5.2014 of the first applicant dated 16.5.2014 and additional representation / reply dated 19.5.2014 in response to the demand notice dated 18.3.2014. The respondent bank has duly accounted and credited all the payments made by the applicants to the loan accounts and the applicants have not produced any evidence to substantiate that the payments made by them have not been accounted for. The applicants have also executed acknowledgement of debt / confirmation of balances periodically certifying that the liabilities outstanding in the books of the bank are correct and have never raised any dispute about SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 10 the outstanding liabilities and the amount payable to the respondent bank. The applicants are also not disputing the signatures in the loan documents and the submission of the applicants that signatures were obtained in blank and in several documents are not correct and denied. The Board of Directors of the company periodically had passed resolutions accepting the terms and conditions of the periodical sanction letters issued by the respondent bank and authorizing / nominating the persons therein to execute the documents in favour of the respondent bank, which are also countersigned in the presence of the Company Secretary by affixing a common seal. The applicants cannot thus plead any ignorance about the contents of the documents executed in favour of the respondent bank. 3.4 The submission of the applicants making a reference to M/s SBQ Steels Ltd., and the filing of the writ petition by the said company before the Honble High Court of Madras is in no way related or connected to the present claim of the respondent bank. As the matter is seized by the Honble High Court and subjudice this respondent is not dealing with the same. 3.5 The applicants have been issued with letters / notices bringing to their notice about the defaults / non-operation of the OCC account and pending liabilities under the devolved LCs from November 2013 and arrears of installments and interest in both the term loans. The applicants inspite of receipt of the said notices have failed to comply with the said demand and hence the respondent bank issued notice dated 12.2.2014 recalling the advance. SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 11 3.6 The contract entered into between the Applicants and the Respondent Bank regarding the rate of interest is complete once the terms and conditions of the sanction in which the rate of interest payable by the applicants is stipulated. 3.7 The Tribunal exercising powers under Section 17 of the Act after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced by the parties, comes to the conclusion that any of the measured referred to in sub section (4) of Section 13, taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and require restoration of possession of the secured asset to the borrower, it may order / declare the recourse to any one or more measures referred to in sub section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor as invalid and restore possession. Therefore the applicants cannot plead or make submissions which have absolutely no relevance to the claim of the respondent bank. 3.8 The demand explains in detail the instances of default, reasons for classifying the account as a NPA and complete details of the outstanding amounts. The demand notice is strictly in accordance to law. The account has to be classified as a NPA when steps are being taken to issue demand notice under SARFAESI Act and there is no need to classify the account as a NPA for issuing recall notice. The only requirement to recall the advance is there should be default or non compliances of the terms and conditions of the sanction and the agreements executed in favour of the respondent bank. In other words SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 12 it is not mandatory to classify the account as a NPA while issuing the recall notice. Therefore there is nothing illegal in issuing a demand notice on 12.2.2014 even before classifying the account as a NPA. It is absolutely false to allege that up-to-date statement of accounts has not been provided for. The first applicant executed letters confirming the correctness of the amount due to the bank as true and correct and accordingly issued certificate on 29.1.2014. 3.9 The applicants failed to comply with the demand notice dated 18.3.2014 and hence the respondent bank was compelled to issue possession notice dated 14.7.2014 by complying with the provisions of the sarfaesi act and the rules made thereunder. 3.10 The respondent bank has scrupulously and meticulously followed the provisions of the sarfaesi act and the rules made thereunder. The possession notice has been published in the English newspaper The New Indian Express and Tamil Newspaper Dina Mani both dated 20.7.2014 of Chennai edition and therefore it is incorrect to say that the possession notice was not published in the newspapers as contended by the applicants. The account of the applicants has been classified as a Non Performing Asset on 24.2.2014 strictly in accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. The possession notice was duly affixed at the conspicuous part of the property and photographs evidencing the same are also filed. 3.11 The contention of the applicants that the account has not become NPA is absolutely incorrect. The respondent bank in reply dated 29.5.2014 has clearly stated that the account was classified as NPA as on SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 13 24.2.2014 and the correspondences exchanged between the parties clearly show as to why the account of the applicants was classified as a NPA. 3.12 The submission of the applicants that the claim of the respondent bank is barred by limitation cannot be accepted. The applicants have executed acknowledgement of debt cum security as late as on 2.3.2013 and therefore the claim of the respondent bank is well within limitation. The respondent bank in the letter dated 11.3.2014 has clearly brought out that the bank cannot consider any restructuring of liabilities and for the reasons stated therein has called upon the applicants to repay the entire dues forthwith. The respondent was compelled to withdraw the OTS since the applicants failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the sanction letter. 3.13 The contention of the Applicants that the possession notice was not affixed on the properties mortgaged is denied. The possession notice was affixed on the gate of the vacant land measuring an extent of 0.88 acre. The possession notice was affixed on the gate as the gate was closed. The possession notice was received by the applicants on 15.7.2014, which is not disputed by the applicants. The vacant land measuring 0.28 acres is also situated abetting the main road, which gate is also closed and hence the possession notice was affixed on the gate itself. The third property measuring 2.25 acres together with building where the factory is situated lied at the back of the vacant lands and the applicants have easementary rights to have access from 0.28 acre vacant land to reach the factory. As the bank officials could SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 14 not have access to the factory premises since both the gates are locked the possession notice was affixed on the gate facing the 0.28 acre of land. The applicants cannot deny the affixture of the possession notices on the gates of both the properties. 3.14 The immovable properties which have been taken possession by the bank are admittedly mortgaged to the bank and the applicants have executed a Memorandum of deposit of tile deeds confirming the mortgage and also extending the same periodically for the enhanced limits. The applicants have not disputed the mortgage. The description of the property mentioned in the registered memorandum completely tallies with the description of the property mentioned in the possession notice. 3.15 The respondent bank in the reply dated 29.5.2014 in response to the representations / objections raised by the applicants clearly stated that the statement of accounts can be collected from the branch, which the applicants have failed to do so till date. The branch is headed by an Assistant General Manager. The rules authorizes the Chief Manager and above to exercise the powers of Authorised Officer. Therefore the demand notice issued by the Assistant General Manager is perferctly in order. 3.16 The respondent bank has filed documents evidencing service of sale notice, its affixture and publication. Thus the respondent bank has scrupulously followed the provisions of the sarfaesi act and the rules made thereunder and hence this SA is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 15
4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:
(i) Whether the Possession Notice dated 14.7.2014 and the subsequent sale notice dated 28.10.2014 under challenge is sustainable in law?
(ii) Whether the Respondent Bank has followed the procedure as contemplated under law?
(iii) Whether the applicants are entitled to the relief sought for in the present SARFAESI Application?
5. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank at length and perused the material documents filed by them. Point 4(i) & 4(ii) 6.0 These SAs are filed by the applicants challenging the Possession Notice dated 14.7.2014 and the Sale Notice dated 28.10.2014 respectively. 6.1 It is case of the applicants that the respondent bank has contravened the provisions of the sarfaesi act and the rules made thereunder while invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act in taking possession of the properties and bringing them to sale. Apart from various allegations regarding the interse strained relationship between the applicants and the respondent bank, the main objections of the applicants raised in the grounds of both the appeals are that the respondent bank had got signed various blank proforma and has got it SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 16 filled to suit its convenience to make the present claim. The respondent bank failed to reply to their objection letter dated 15.5.2015 and also furnish copy of the documents requested by them in their letter dated 19.5.2014 and has proceeded further under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The demand notice is bereft of details regarding instances of default, reasons for classifying the account as a NPA and details of the outstanding and the account of the applicants could not have been classified as NPA as on the date of alleged classification of the account as a NPA. The respondent bank has failed to publish the possession notice and affix the same as contemplated under Rules. The description of the properties in the possession notice is wrong and the respondent bank has taken possession of the properties which have not been mortgaged. The applicants should have been permitted with the restructuring of the loan and the respondent bank ought not to have recalled the OTS unilaterally. The respondent bank has failed to serve a notice of 30 days for sale of the properties and affix the sale notice in a conspicuous part of the properties. 6.2 Per Contra, the respondent bank has filed detailed counter affidavits in both the Applications and typed set of documents in support of its contentions. Borrowal of the credit limits, execution of loan and security documents, default in repayment of the loan are not disputed. It is submitted that the applicants having admitted availing credit facilities from the respondent bank, signing the loan documents in favour of the respondent bank, creation of security interest in favour of the respondent bank by way of mortgage in respect of the schedule properties cannot dispute the description of the property in the notices. SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 17 The properties mentioned in the registered memorandum completely tallies with the description of the property mentioned in the possession notice. The respondent bank has sent a detailed reply to the representation on 29.5.2014 of the first applicant dated 16.5.2014 and additional representation / reply dated 19.5.2014 in response to the demand notice dated 18.3.2014. The respondent bank has duly accounted and credited all the payments made by the applicants to the loan accounts and the applicants have not produced any evidence to substantiate that the payments made by them have not been accounted for. The applicants have also executed acknowledgement of debt / confirmation of balances periodically certifying that the liabilities outstanding in the books of the bank are correct and have never raised any dispute about the outstanding liabilities and the amount payable to the respondent bank. The applicants are also not disputing the signatures in the loan documents and the submission of the applicants that signatures were obtained in blank and in several documents are not correct. The Board of Directors of the company periodically had passed resolutions accepting the terms and conditions of the periodical sanction letters issued by the respondent bank and authorizing / nominating the persons therein to execute the documents in favour of the respondent bank, which are also countersigned in the presence of the Company Secretary by affixing a common seal. The applicants cannot thus plead any ignorance about the contents of the documents executed in favour of the respondent bank. The submission of the applicants making a reference to M/s SBQ Steels Ltd., and the filing of the writ petition by the said company before the SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 18 Honble High Court of Madras is in no way related or connected to the present claim of the respondent bank. The contract entered into between the Applicants and the Respondent Bank regarding the rate of interest is complete once the terms and conditions of the sanction in which the rate of interest payable by the applicants is stipulated. The demand notice explains in detail the instances of default, reasons for classifying the account as a NPA, and complete details of the outstanding amounts. The demand notice is strictly in accordance to law. The account has to be classified as a NPA when steps are being taken to issue demand notice under SARFAESI Act and there is no need to classify the account as a NPA for issuing recall notice. Therefore there is nothing illegal in issuing a demand notice on 12.2.2014 even before classifying the account as a NPA. It is absolutely false to allege that up-to-date statement of accounts has not been provided for and the first applicant has executed letters confirming the correctness of the amount due to the bank as true and correct. The respondent bank has scrupulously and meticulously followed the provisions of the sarfaesi act and the rules made thereunder. The respondent bank has filed documents evidencing the publication of the possession in the English newspaper The New Indian Express and Tamil Newspaper Dina Mani both dated 20.7.2014 of Chennai edition, the account of the applicants has been classified as a Non Performing Asset on 24.2.2014 strictly in accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. The possession notice was duly affixed at the conspicuous part of the property and photographs evidencing the same are also filed. The SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 19 contention of the applicants that the account has not become NPA is absolutely incorrect. The respondent bank in reply dated 29.5.2014 has clearly stated that the account was classified as NPA as on 24.2.2014 and the correspondences exchanged between the parties clearly show as to why the account of the applicants was classified as a NPA. The submission of the applicants that the claim of the respondent bank is barred by limitation cannot be accepted as the applicants have executed acknowledgement of debt cum security as late as on 2.3.2013 and therefore the claim of the respondent bank is well within limitation. The respondent was compelled to withdraw the OTS since the applicants failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the sanction letter. The possession notice was affixed on the gate of the vacant land measuring an extent of 0.88 acre. The possession notice was affixed on the gate as the gate was closed. The possession notice was received by the applicants on 15.7.2014, which is not disputed by the applicants. The vacant land measuring 0.28 acres is also situated abetting the main road, which gate is also closed and hence the possession notice was affixed on the gate itself. The third property measuring 2.25 acres together with building where the factory is situated lied at the back of the vacant lands and the applicants have easementary rights to have access from 0.28 acre vacant land to reach the factory. As the bank officials could not have access to the factory premises since both the gates are locked the possession notice was affixed on the gate facing the 0.28 acre of land. The applicants cannot deny the affixture of the possession notices on the gates of both the properties. The immovable properties which have been taken SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 20 possession by the bank are admittedly mortgaged to the bank and the applicants have executed a Memorandum of deposit of tile deeds confirming the mortgage and also extending the same periodically for the enhanced limits and the applicants have not disputed the mortgage. The description of the property mentioned in the registered memorandum completely tallies with the description of the property mentioned in the possession notice. The respondent bank in the reply dated 29.5.2014 in response to the representations / objections raised by the applicants clearly stated that the statement of accounts can be collected from the branch, which the applicants have failed to do so till date. The branch is headed by an Assistant General Manager. The rules authorizes the Chief Manager and above to exercise the powers of Authorised Officer. Therefore the demand notice issued by the Assistant General Manager is in order. The respondent bank has filed documents evidencing service of sale notice, its affixture and publication. Thus the respondent bank has scrupulously followed the provisions of the sarfaesi act and the rules made thereunder and hence this SA is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6.3 From the above it can be seen that the respondent bank has not contravened the provisions of the sarfaesi act and the rules made thereunder in invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act in issuing the impugned Possession Notice dated 14.7.2014 and the Sale Notice dated 28.10.2014. 6.4 Accordingly, these points are answered in favour of the respondent bank and against the applicants. SA No.406/2014 & 484/2014 15.09.2015 21 Point 4(iii) 7.0 Since the respondent bank has followed the procedure as contemplated under the Act and the Rules made thereunder while issuing the Possession Notice dated 14.7.2014 and the Sale Notice dated 28.10.2014, the above SARFAESI Appeals challenging the actions of the respondent bank are liable to be dismissed. 7.1 Accordingly, the SA is dismissed holding that the Possession Notice dated 14.7.2014 and the Sale Notice dated 28.10.2014 are valid in law and does not suffer any legal infirmities. Accordingly these SAs are dismissed, however without costs. The interim stay if any subsisting till this day stands discharged and the respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed further in accordance to law.
8. The Registry is directed to communicate copy of the order to the parties concerned by speed post or registered post with AD or personal delivery against due acknowledgment. (Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him and after necessary corrections, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 15 day of September, 2015) Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER