Representation under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, against the Demand Notice dated 22-09-2025 issued under Section 13(2) — illegal, defective, time-barred, and unenforceable in law

 

                                                              

BY REGISTERED POST / SPEED POST WITH A/D / COURIER

 

Date : 6^th day of November’ 2025

To
The Authorised Officer,
Bank of Baroda,
Zonal Stressed Asset Recovery Branch,

21A, Sadananda Road,

2^nd Floor, Kolkata – 700026

Phone : 033-24196434, 033-24196224,

Email : armcal@bankofbaroda.com

 

Subject: Representation under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, against the Demand Notice dated 22-09-2025 issued under Section 13(2) — illegal, defective, time-barred, and unenforceable in law.

 

Sir / Madam,

 

Under instructions and on behalf of my client, M/s. Apurba Overseas Private Limited, having its Registered Office at Tegharia, R.K. Pally, Sonarpur, Kolkata – 700150, Directors Dulal Chandra Naskar & Ashima Naskar, the Borrower in respect of the credit facilities extended by your Bank, I hereby submit this Representation / Objection under Section 13(3A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the Act”) against your purported Demand Notice dated 22-09-2025, issued under Section 13(2) of the Act.

 

1. At the outset, my client denies and disputes the correctness and completeness of the contents of Paragraph 1 of your said notice. The said paragraph refers to your letter dated 09.04.2003 allegedly conveying sanction of various credit facilities, including PCL cum FBP and Bank Guarantee facilities with an overall limit of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-, and claims an outstanding sum of Rs. 54,16,030.60 along with unpaid interest since 01.03.2007 and other charges. It is submitted that the alleged loan facilities were availed more than 22 years ago, and that the Bank’s right, if any, to recover such dues has long since become barred by limitation.

 

2. The account was classified as NPA on 01.03.2007, as admitted in your notice itself. Thereafter, for nearly 18 years, the Bank did not initiate any proceeding under SARFAESI Act 2002. The present demand notice, issued in 2025, is therefore hopelessly barred by limitation and void ab initio, as already elaborated in the succeeding paragraphs.

 

3. As regards the security description in Para 1 of the notice, it is stated that the property mentioned therein, namely Plot of land measuring 101 satak/decimal and another measuring 60 satak/decimal, both at Mouza Tegharia, P.O. Ram Krishna Mission Pally, P.S. Sonarpur, under Rajpur–Sonarpur Municipality, Ward No. 7, Khatian No. 169, Dag No. 24, J.L. No. 52, District South 24 Parganas, alleged to be in the name of Mr. Year Ali Mallick, are not the properties of the Borrower, and the notice has not even been addressed to Mr. Year Ali Mallick, the alleged original mortgagor of those lands.

 

4. The failure to address the notice to the actual mortgagor (Mr. Year Ali Mallick) renders the entire proceeding defective, non-compliant with Section 13(2), and without jurisdiction, since the Bank has not duly notified all persons having an interest in the secured asset as mandated by law.

 

5. Moreover, the property description furnished in the notice is grossly inadequate, vague, and insufficient for proper identification of the mortgaged property, lacking details such as deed numbers, dates of registration, schedule maps, boundaries consistency, or municipal holding numbers. Such insufficiency defeats the purpose of Section 13(2), which requires the Bank to clearly identify the secured assets intended to be enforced. Hence, the notice fails the mandatory statutory requirements and is liable to be set aside.

 

6. The Bank’s own admission that the loan account was classified as NPA on 01.03.2007 establishes that the limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, expired on 01.03.2010, i.e., within three years of such classification.

 

7. There has been no acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 nor any part-payment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act since 2007. Therefore, the Bank’s claim has become time-barred and is no longer a legally enforceable debt within the meaning of the SARFAESI Act.

 

8. It is trite law that only a legally enforceable debt can form the basis of any action under the SARFAESI Act 2002. The issuance of the present notice after an inordinate delay of 18 years from the date of NPA classification is contrary to law and without jurisdiction.

 

9. Consequently, the impugned notice is unsustainable in law, being issued in respect of a stale and extinguished claim.

 

In view of the facts and grounds stated hereinabove, my client most humbly requests that the Bank;

 

(a)   Acknowledge this representation as a valid objection under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002;

 

(b)  Withdraw and cancel the impugned Demand Notice dated 22-09-2025, issued under Section 13(2), being defective, time-barred, and void ab initio; and

 

(c)   Refrain from taking any coercive measures under Section 13(4) or otherwise in connection with the alleged loan account, as the claim is not legally enforceable.

 

 

My client reserves the right to initiate appropriate legal proceedings before the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal and other competent forums if any further action is attempted in contravention of law.

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Pritilata Sardar

Advocate

High Court Calcutta

 

Encl.: Copy of Demand Notice dated 22/09/2025 under Section 13(2)