M.M. RAMACHANDRAN Vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court being faced with the proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act.

(2.) It is stated that though the Bank had taken up a contention that there was proper service of notice under Section 13 (2) and 13(4) of the Act, petitioners were not served with any such notice. However, possession of the property has been taken without complying with the aforesaid requirements.

(3.) During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners does not intend to challenge the service of notice under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Act, as the Bank had filed a counter affidavit, stating the manner in which the notice had been served by registered post as well as by affixture.