(1.) Heard.
(2.) In the present case, demand notice has been issued on 6.9.2016, the receipt of which has been denied by the petitioners. However, in the impugned order passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short "the Act ") by the District Collector on 17.5.2018, it has been mentioned clearly that there is available on record a copy of the postal acknowledgment showing receipt of demand notice by the non-applicants. This observation also receives support from the admission given by the petitioners in their applications filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In one of the applications, in paragraph 5.8, the petitioners have stated that without giving any opportunity to applicant No.1 i.e. Shri Satyaseelan S/o Nanu Kuttappan of submitting any representation and in contravention of the law, the respondent bank took possession of the assets under Section 13(4) of the Act on 17.3.2013 only to deprive the applicants of being heard. It appears that there is some mistake in mentioning the date of taking over of the possession as 17.2.2013 but, the fact remains that the petitioners are well aware of taking over of the possession of the assets under Section 13(4) by the bank.
(3.) Shri Fuladi, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.2 by waiving notice and submits that this taking over of the possession of the assets acknowledged by the petitioners, was symbolic possession and the order of physical possession was passed on 17.5.2018. He submits that one of the secured assets has been sold in auction by respondent No.2 bank on 8.9.2021 and the sale has been finalized but, this action of the bank has not been specifically challenged by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this action, the sale of one of the secured assets on 8.9.2021, has been sought to be challenged by the petitioners as they have moved an amendment application before the D.R.T., which is pending.