IN
THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KOLKATA
JEEVAN SUDHA BUILDING (7th FLOOR)
42C, J.L. NEHRU ROAD
KOLKATA – 700 071
SARFAESI
APPLICATION NO. ________ OF 2025
(Diary
No._______________Of 2025)
ASHIKUR RAHAMAN
--- ---- APPLICANT
– VERSUS –
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR.
----- ---- RESPONDENTS
DETAILS
OF APPLICATION:
-
1. PARTICULARS OF THE
APPLICANT: -
a) Name: - ASHIKUR RAHAMAN
b)
Address
of the Applicant: - Ashikur
Rahaman,
Son
of Rabiur Rahaman,
Residing at Kachari Road,
Ballari Market Complex,
Post Office & Police Station –Katwa, District – Purba Bardhaman, PIN –
713130, West Bengal.
c)
Address
of Notice Service: - Ashikur
Rahaman,
Son
of Rabiur Rahaman,
Residing at Kachari Road,
Ballari Market Complex,
Post Office & Police Station –Katwa, District – Purba Bardhaman, PIN –
713130, West Bengal.
2. PARTICULARS OF THE
RESPONDENTS
a) Name: - (1) CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
(2) THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CENTRAL
BANK OF INDIA
b)
Address
of the Respondent:
(1) CENTRAL
BANK OF INDIA, Regional Office, Durgapur,
R.O. Durgapur, AT & PO – Mamra Bazar – 713206,
District – Burdwan,
Phone:0343-2502247, Email: cmdurgro@centralbank.co.in
(2) THE
AUTHORISED OFFICER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, Regional Office,
Durgapur,
R.O. Durgapur, AT & PO – Mamra Bazar – 713206,
District – Burdwan,
Phone:0343-2502247, Email: cmdurgro@centralbank.co.in
c)
Address
of Notice Service: -
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, Regional
Office, Durgapur,
R.O. Durgapur, AT & PO – Mamra Bazar – 713206,
District – Burdwan,
Phone:0343-2502247, Email: cmdurgro@centralbank.co.in
3. JURISDICTION OF THE
TRIBUNAL:
-
That
the Applicant states and submits that this Hon’ble Tribunal has full, valid and
competent territorial
as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose
of the present application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002, inasmuch as the secured asset which is the subject-matter of the impugned
SARFAESI action is lying, situated and located well within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Tribunal; that the immovable property sought to be
enforced by the Respondent Bank is a commercial building situated at Mouza – Katwa, J.L. No. 21, Plot Nos. 383/976
and 385/981, within Katwa Municipality, Holding No. 64, Post Office &
Police Station – Katwa, District – Purba Bardhaman, PIN – 713130, West Bengal,
measuring about 07 Satak
and 03 Satak of land, comprising a five-storied building having approximately 1250
sq. ft. area on each floor, and bounded by North – Building of Molla and Others, South –
Dalal Pukur, East – Municipal Road, and West – Dalal Pukur;
that the Demand Notice dated 29.08.2025 and the Respondent Bank, namely Central
Bank of India, Regional Office, Durgapur,
R.O. Durgapur, AT & PO – Mamra Bazar – 713206,
District – Burdwan, issued a Demand Notice dated 29.08.2025 under Section 13(2)
of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, bearing reference No. RO: DGO: RECV: 2024-25,
alleging that five MSME loan accounts maintained with the said Katwa Branch
were classified as Non-Performing Assets on 18.08.2025 and thereby demanded an
aggregate sum of Rs.
29,01,324.61/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Four
and Paise Sixty One only) as allegedly outstanding and payable
as on 20.08.2025, while threatening initiation of coercive measures under
Section 13(4) of the Act; that the said alleged demand has been raised by
clubbing together five distinct loan accounts, namely (i) TL-MSME Loan, sanctioned on
29.12.2012 bearing Account No. 3725066456
with a sanctioned limit of Rs.
5,00,000/-, (ii) Cent
Sahyog Loan, sanctioned on 26.02.2018 bearing Account No. 4010179598 with a sanctioned
limit of Rs.
35,00,000/-, (iii) FITL
MSME Restr Loan, sanctioned on 27.11.2020 bearing Account No. 3867543961 with a sanctioned
limit of Rs.
6,39,968/-, (iv) Cent
Mortgage Business Loan, sanctioned on 24.02.2020 bearing
Account No. 4051525270
with a sanctioned limit of Rs.
15,00,000/-, and (v) Cent
GECL 2.0 MSME Loan, sanctioned on 28.06.2021 bearing Account
No. 5116231578
with a sanctioned limit of Rs.
7,00,000/-, all maintained at the Central Bank of India, Katwa
Branch; that without furnishing any borrower-wise segregation, loan-wise
outstanding, statement of account, date of default, interest calculation or
contractual rate of interest in respect of the aforesaid loan accounts, the
Respondent Bank proceeded to issue and thereafter affix a Possession Notice dated 15.11.2025 under Rule
8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002,
seeking to take possession of the secured immovable property described therein,
solely on the basis of the aforesaid defective and illegal demand notice,
thereby subjecting the Applicant to arbitrary and unlawful SARFAESI measures in
respect of MSME loan accounts maintained with the Central Bank of India, Katwa
Branch and the Respondent Bank directly pertain to and seek enforcement against
the aforesaid secured asset, and therefore the cause of action for the present
application has arisen wholly and substantially within the territorial limits
of this Hon’ble Tribunal; the Applicant further states that the value of the
secured debt and the reliefs claimed herein are well within the pecuniary
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Tribunal, and accordingly, this Hon’ble Tribunal
has complete jurisdiction in law to adjudicate upon the present application and
grant the reliefs prayed for.
4. LIMITATION: -
That the Applicant states and declares
that the present Securitisation Application has been filed strictly within the
period of limitation prescribed under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002, inasmuch as the Applicant has approached this Hon’ble Tribunal well
within forty-five (45) days from the date of taking of measures by the
Respondent Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act, including the issuance and
affixation of the Possession Notice dated 15.11.2025; the Applicant further
states that the present application also seeks to challenge the legality,
validity and enforceability of the Demand Notice dated 29.08.2025 issued under
Section 13(2) of the Act, which demand notice forms the very foundation of the
subsequent measures under Section 13(4), and therefore the cause of action is
continuing and subsisting; the Applicant accordingly declares that the present
application is well within the statutory limitation prescribed under Section
17(1) of the Act and is thus maintainable in law, without being barred by limitation
or delay.
4.A
LOCUS OF APPLICANT :-
Enumerate
herein nature of locus of applicant under subsection (1) of Section 17, read
with sub section (4) of Section 17.
The Applicant states and submits that he has the
requisite locus standi to maintain and prosecute the present application under
Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, inasmuch as
the Applicant is the Borrower against whom the Respondent Bank has initiated
measures under Section 13(4) of the Act by issuance and affixation of the
Possession Notice dated 15.11.2025, pursuant to an illegal and defective Demand
Notice dated 29.08.2025 issued under Section 13(2) of the Act; the Applicant is
thus an “aggrieved person” within the meaning of Section 17(1) of the Act, as
the impugned measures directly and adversely affect his legal, proprietary and
possessory rights, as well as his business and livelihood; the Applicant
further states that under Section 17(4) of the Act, this Hon’ble Tribunal is
empowered to examine the legality and validity of all actions taken by the
Respondent Bank under Section 13(4) and to restore possession and grant
consequential reliefs where such actions are found to be not in accordance with
the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, and therefore the
Applicant, being the Borrower and the person directly proceeded against, has
full and unquestionable locus to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Tribunal and seek appropriate reliefs as prayed for herein.
5. FACT OF THE CASE: -
5.1
That the Applicant
states that the Respondent Bank issued a purported Demand Notice under Section
13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, bearing reference No. RO: DGO: RECV: 2024-25
dated 29.08.2025, alleging classification of five MSME loan accounts as
Non-Performing Assets on 18.08.2025 and demanding a sum of Rs. 29,01,324.61/-
as allegedly outstanding as on 20.08.2025; however, the said Demand Notice is
ex facie illegal and void in law as the same was admittedly served only upon
the Applicant, Ashikur Rahaman, while no notice under Section 13(2) was ever
served upon the other alleged obligors namely Rabiur Rahaman, wrongly described
as a Co-Borrower, and Rafikur Rahaman, wrongly described as a Guarantor,
thereby violating the mandatory requirement of service upon all persons against
whom liability is sought to be enforced, which defect alone vitiates the entire
SARFAESI proceeding.
5.2
That the Respondent
Bank has mechanically and arbitrarily clubbed five distinct MSME loan accounts,
namely TL-MSME, Cent Sahyog, FITL MSME Restr, Cent Mortgage Business and Cent
GECL 2.0 MSME, without disclosing as to which loan facility was sanctioned in whose
name, despite the fact that some of the said loans were sanctioned in favour of
Rafikur Rahaman and not solely in favour of the Applicant; further, the
Respondent Bank has failed to furnish any statement of account, date of
default, calculation of overdue amount, contractual rate of interest or
RBI-mandated asset classification particulars, thereby rendering the alleged
demand wholly vague, unsubstantiated and unenforceable, and the alleged
classification of the accounts as NPA on 18.08.2025 has been done in gross
violation of the RBI guidelines governing MSME advances and without adherence
to statutory norms.
5.3
That the secured
asset described in the impugned Demand Notice is fundamentally defective and
misleading, inasmuch as the property sought to be proceeded against admittedly
stands in the names of Rabiur Rahaman and Rafikur Rahaman, sons of Late Abdur
Rahaman, yet the Respondent Bank has failed to disclose the chain of title,
ownership demarcation, mode of creation of security or the specific sale deeds
by which the said property was acquired, in clear violation of Rule 8(6) of the
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; moreover, the Respondent Bank has
deliberately suppressed the fact that it had itself created an encumbrance upon
the said property by executing a registered Lease Deed dated 21.11.2022 for a
period of five years at a monthly rent of Rs. 27,000/-, with the Applicant
acting as Power of Attorney holder of the owners, which lease is subsisting and
legally binding, yet the same has not been disclosed in the schedule of the
secured asset, thereby vitiating the entire SARFAESI action.
5.4
That although the
Applicant duly submitted a detailed representation dated 10.09.2025 under
Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 through his learned Advocate, raising
specific objections regarding illegal NPA classification, non-service of
notice, defective demand and non-consideration of the Applicant’s prior
restructuring request dated 21.07.2025 made due to severe business losses, the
Respondent Bank by its reply dated 23.09.2025 failed to deal with the
objections in a reasoned and meaningful manner and merely reiterated the
alleged demand, and thereafter proceeded to issue and affix a Possession Notice
dated 15.11.2025 under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,
2002, which possession notice is wholly consequential, premature and illegal,
particularly when the loan facilities in question are MSME loans and the
Respondent Bank has invoked the drastic provisions of the SARFAESI Act in
complete disregard of RBI guidelines, statutory safeguards and principles of
natural justice.
5.5
That the Applicant
states that the Respondent Bank, namely Central Bank of India, issued a Demand
Notice dated 29.08.2025 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, bearing
reference No. RO: DGO: RECV: 2024-25, alleging that five MSME loan accounts
maintained with the said Katwa Branch were classified as Non-Performing Assets
on 18.08.2025 and thereby demanded an aggregate sum of Rs. 29,01,324.61/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs
One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Four and Paise Sixty One only)
as allegedly outstanding and payable as on 20.08.2025, while threatening
initiation of coercive measures under Section 13(4) of the Act; that the said
alleged demand has been raised by clubbing together five distinct loan
accounts, namely (i) TL-MSME
Loan, sanctioned on 29.12.2012 bearing Account No. 3725066456 with a sanctioned
limit of Rs.
5,00,000/-, (ii) Cent
Sahyog Loan, sanctioned on 26.02.2018 bearing Account No. 4010179598 with a sanctioned
limit of Rs.
35,00,000/-, (iii) FITL
MSME Restr Loan, sanctioned on 27.11.2020 bearing Account No. 3867543961 with a sanctioned
limit of Rs.
6,39,968/-, (iv) Cent
Mortgage Business Loan, sanctioned on 24.02.2020 bearing
Account No. 4051525270
with a sanctioned limit of Rs.
15,00,000/-, and (v) Cent
GECL 2.0 MSME Loan, sanctioned on 28.06.2021 bearing Account
No. 5116231578
with a sanctioned limit of Rs.
7,00,000/-, all maintained at the Central Bank of India, Katwa
Branch; that without furnishing any borrower-wise segregation, loan-wise
outstanding, statement of account, date of default, interest calculation or
contractual rate of interest in respect of the aforesaid loan accounts, the
Respondent Bank proceeded to issue and thereafter affix a Possession Notice dated 15.11.2025 under Rule
8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002,
seeking to take possession of the secured immovable property described therein,
solely on the basis of the aforesaid defective and illegal demand notice,
thereby subjecting the Applicant to arbitrary and unlawful SARFAESI measures in
respect of MSME loan accounts maintained with the Central Bank of India, Katwa
Branch.
5.6
That the Applicant
states that the Respondent Bank has acted in excess of jurisdiction and in
colourable exercise of power by invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act,
2002 in respect of MSME loan facilities without adhering to the mandatory RBI
guidelines governing restructuring, rehabilitation and recovery of MSME
advances, and without considering the Applicant’s bona fide request for
restructuring dated 21.07.2025 submitted prior to the alleged classification of
the loan accounts as NPA; the Respondent Bank has thus acted arbitrarily,
mechanically and in violation of statutory safeguards meant for MSME borrowers,
rendering the impugned Demand Notice and the consequential Possession Notice
illegal, unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
5.7
That the Applicant
further states that the impugned SARFAESI measures have been initiated without
due application of mind, without compliance with the principles of natural
justice, and without following the mandatory procedural requirements under the
Act and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, inasmuch as the
Respondent Bank has failed to disclose material particulars relating to the
loan accounts, the security interest, the encumbrances upon the secured asset,
and the basis of computation of the alleged dues, thereby depriving the
Applicant of an effective opportunity to understand, verify and contest the
alleged liability, which vitiates the entire proceedings.
5.8
That the Applicant
states that the impugned Demand Notice dated 29.08.2025 and the Possession
Notice dated 15.11.2025 are not independent or severable actions, but are
intrinsically connected and consequential to each other, and since the
foundational Demand Notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002
is illegal, defective and void ab initio,
all subsequent actions taken by the Respondent Bank under Section 13(4) of the
Act, including the Possession Notice, are equally illegal, non est in the eye
of law and liable to be quashed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in exercise of powers
under Section 17(4) of the Act.
5.9
The Applicant craves
leave to urge the following grounds amongst others at the time of hearing,
without prejudice to one another before the Hon’ble Tribunal;
GROUNDS
I.
Because the
impugned Demand Notice dated 29.08.2025 issued under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 was admittedly served only upon the Applicant, while no
notice was ever served upon the other alleged obligors, namely Rabiur Rahaman
and Rafikur Rahaman, against whom liability is sought to be enforced, the
mandatory requirement of service upon all borrowers/co-borrowers/guarantors has
been violated, rendering the entire SARFAESI proceedings illegal and void ab initio;
II.
Because the Respondent Bank has
illegally classified the five MSME loan accounts as Non-Performing Assets on
18.08.2025 without adhering to the RBI guidelines governing asset
classification of MSME advances, without disclosing the date of default,
overdue period or account-wise irregularity, and without considering the
Applicant’s restructuring request dated 21.07.2025, the alleged NPA
classification is arbitrary, mechanical and unsustainable in law;
III.
Because the Respondent Bank has raised
an aggregate demand of Rs. 29,01,324.61/- by mechanically clubbing five
distinct loan accounts without furnishing any statement of account, loan-wise
outstanding, contractual rate of interest or calculation methodology, the
alleged demand is vague, unsubstantiated and unenforceable, and therefore
cannot form the basis of any action under the SARFAESI Act;
IV.
Because the Respondent Bank has
deliberately failed to disclose as to which loan facility was sanctioned in
whose name, despite the admitted position that some of the loan accounts were
sanctioned in favour of Rafikur Rahaman and not solely in favour of the
Applicant, the impugned Demand Notice suffers from material suppression and
misdescription of liability, vitiating the entire action;
V.
Because the secured asset described in
the impugned Demand Notice and Possession Notice does not disclose the chain of
title, ownership demarcation, sale deeds or mode of creation of security, and
merely provides a vague and incomplete description of the property, the
Respondent Bank has violated Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement)
Rules, 2002, rendering the enforcement proceedings illegal;
VI.
Because the Respondent Bank has
deliberately suppressed the existence of a subsisting registered Lease Deed
dated 21.11.2022 executed by the Bank itself in respect of a portion of the
secured asset for a period of five years at a monthly rent of Rs. 27,000/-, the
schedule of the secured asset is materially misleading and incomplete,
vitiating the SARFAESI action;
VII.
Because the Respondent Bank, while
replying to the Applicant’s detailed representation dated 10.09.2025, failed to
deal with the objections in a reasoned and speaking manner and merely
reiterated the alleged demand by its reply dated 23.09.2025, the mandatory
requirement of consideration under Section 13(3A) of the Act has been violated,
thereby nullifying the subsequent measures;
VIII.
Because the Possession Notice dated
15.11.2025 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,
2002 is wholly consequential to the illegal Demand Notice dated 29.08.2025, and
since the foundational Demand Notice is void, all subsequent measures taken
under Section 13(4) of the Act are equally illegal, non est and liable to be
set aside;
IX.
Because the Respondent Bank has
proceeded with drastic SARFAESI measures without furnishing material
particulars, account statements, interest calculations or title documents, and
without affording the Applicant a fair and effective opportunity to contest the
alleged liability, the impugned actions are in gross violation of the
principles of natural justice;
X.
Because the loan facilities in
question are MSME loans, the Respondent Bank was bound to strictly adhere to
RBI-mandated frameworks for restructuring, rehabilitation and recovery, and its
mechanical invocation of the SARFAESI Act without complying with such
safeguards amounts to arbitrary and colourable exercise of power;
XI.
Because the Respondent Bank has
invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act in excess of its statutory
authority, without compliance with mandatory provisions of the Act and the
Rules, the impugned actions amount to abuse of the SARFAESI mechanism and are
liable to be interdicted by this Hon’ble Tribunal under Section 17(4) of the Act;
XII.
Because the Respondent Bank has failed
to act in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, this Hon’ble Tribunal is empowered
under Section 17(4) of the Act to declare the impugned Demand Notice and
Possession Notice invalid and to grant consequential reliefs including
restoration of possession.
5.10 That unless the
impugned Demand Notice dated 29.08.2025 issued under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the consequential Possession Notice dated 15.11.2025
issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 are
quashed and set aside, and the Respondent Bank is restrained from proceeding
further under the SARFAESI Act, the Applicant shall suffer grave, irreparable
and irreversible loss and injury, inasmuch as the Respondent Bank would proceed
to take further coercive measures under Section 13(4) of the Act, including
dispossession and alienation of the secured asset, which cannot be adequately
compensated in terms of money.
5.11 That
due to the arbitrary, illegal and high-handed acts of the Respondent Bank in
initiating SARFAESI proceedings without compliance of mandatory statutory
provisions and RBI guidelines, the Applicant has already been made to suffer
and is likely to be seriously prejudiced, as a cloud has been unlawfully cast
upon his lawful rights, interests and possession in respect of the Schedule
property, and therefore it is necessary in the interest of justice that the
impugned Demand Notice and Possession Notice be quashed and declared illegal,
null and void.
5.12 That
under the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, the Applicant
respectfully submits that the purported Demand Notice dated 29.08.2025 issued
under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Possession Notice dated
15.11.2025 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,
2002, along with all actions taken and sought to be taken pursuant thereto, are
illegal, arbitrary and bad in law, and deserve to be quashed and set aside by
this Hon’ble Tribunal; consequently, the Respondent Bank also deserves to be
restrained from giving any effect to the said notices or from acting in any
manner whatsoever in furtherance thereof against the Schedule property of the
Applicant.
5.13 That
unless the reliefs as prayed for herein are granted by this Hon’ble Tribunal,
the Applicant shall suffer irreparable loss, prejudice and injury, and the
present application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 would be
rendered infructuous, as the Respondent Bank would proceed with further
coercive steps resulting in irreversible consequences.
5.14 Unless Orders as prayed for herein are made
the Applicant shall suffer irreparable loss, prejudice and injury thereof.
6. RELIEFS SOUGHT FOR: -
In
the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, the Applicant most respectfully
prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to;
(a)
Quash and set aside the impugned
Demand Notice dated 29.08.2025
issued by the Respondent Bank under Section
13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, bearing reference No. RO: DGO: RECV: 2024-25,
in respect of the five MSME loan accounts maintained with the Central Bank of
India, Katwa Branch, being illegal, arbitrary and bad in law;
(b)
Quash and set aside the impugned Possession Notice dated
15.11.2025 issued under Rule
8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, along
with all consequential steps taken or sought to be taken pursuant thereto,
including symbolic possession, affixation and publication, if any;
(c)
Declare that the alleged
classification of the five MSME loan accounts as Non-Performing Assets on
18.08.2025 is illegal, void and contrary to the RBI guidelines
governing MSME advances and restructuring, and consequently hold that the
entire SARFAESI action initiated on the basis thereof is unsustainable in law;
(d)
Declare that the clubbing of five
distinct MSME loan accounts, namely TL-MSME,
Cent Sahyog, FITL MSME Restr, Cent Mortgage Business and Cent GECL 2.0 MSME,
without borrower-wise and loan-wise segregation, statement of account, date of
default and interest calculation, is illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable;
(e)
Declare that the impugned SARFAESI
proceedings are vitiated for non-service of mandatory notice under Section 13(2)
upon all alleged obligors and persons against whom liability is sought to be
enforced, and are therefore void ab initio;
(f)
Restrain the Respondent Bank, its
officers, agents and representatives from taking any further coercive steps
under Section
13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, including dispossession, sale,
auction or creation of third-party interest in respect of the Schedule property,
in any manner whatsoever;
(g)
Direct the Respondent Bank to maintain
status quo
in respect of the possession, nature and character of the Schedule property
till final disposal of the present Securitisation Application;
(h)
Direct the Respondent Bank to furnish
complete, true and correct loan-wise
statements of account, details of borrower-wise liability, date
of default, contractual rate of interest, calculation of alleged dues and
RBI-mandated asset classification particulars in respect of each of the five
MSME loan accounts;
(i)
Pass an order directing the Respondent
Bank to consider the Applicant’s representation
dated 10.09.2025 and prior restructuring request dated 21.07.2025
afresh, strictly in accordance with RBI guidelines applicable to MSME
borrowers, by passing a reasoned and speaking order;
(j)
Award costs of the present application
in favour of the Applicant; and
(k)
Pass such further or other order(s) as
this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
7. INTERIM RELIEFS: -
Pending
disposal of the present Securitisation Application, the Applicant most
respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to;
(i)
Stay the operation, implementation and
effect of the impugned Demand
Notice dated 29.08.2025 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI
Act, 2002, bearing reference No. RO: DGO: RECV: 2024-25,
in respect of the five MSME loan accounts maintained with the Central Bank of
India, Katwa Branch;
(ii)
Stay the operation, implementation and
effect of the impugned Possession
Notice dated 15.11.2025 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security
Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, along with all
consequential actions taken or sought to be taken pursuant thereto, including
affixation, publication and symbolic possession, if any;
(iii)
Restrain the Respondent Bank, its
officers, agents and representatives from taking any further coercive measures
under Section
13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, including dispossession, sale,
auction, confirmation of sale, registration or creation of any third-party
interest in respect of the Schedule
property, in any manner whatsoever;
(iv)
Direct the Respondent Bank to maintain
status quo
with regard to possession, nature and character of the Schedule property
till final disposal of the present Securitisation Application;
(v)
Stay all further steps pursuant to and
arising out of the impugned SARFAESI proceedings initiated on the basis of the
alleged classification of the five MSME loan accounts as Non-Performing Assets
on 18.08.2025;
(vi)
Direct the Respondent Bank, on a
without-prejudice basis, to produce before this Hon’ble Tribunal complete and
correct loan-wise
statements of account, borrower-wise liability details, date of
default, contractual rate of interest and calculation of alleged dues in
respect of each of the five MSME loan accounts;
(vii)
Pass such further or other interim
order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of
justice.
8. MATTER NOT PENDING
WITH ANY OTHER COURT, ETC. : -
The
Applicant states that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, no other suit,
application or proceeding in respect of the subject matter of the present
Securitisation Application is pending before any Court, Tribunal or authority, save
and except the present proceeding.
It
is respectfully submitted that the Respondent Bank has not initiated any other
proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in respect of the impugned Demand
Notice dated 29.08.2025
and the impugned Possession Notice dated 15.11.2025,
which are the subject matter of challenge herein. The Applicant further states
that he has not preferred any other application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act,
2002 challenging the aforesaid notices or any consequential
action arising therefrom.
It
is further submitted that the present Securitisation Application has been filed
upon accrual of a fresh
and independent cause of action arising out of the issuance of
the impugned Demand Notice dated 29.08.2025
under Section 13(2) of the Act and the subsequent Possession Notice dated 15.11.2025
issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, and
is therefore maintainable in law.
9. PARTICULARS OF THE
BANK DRAFT:
-
Fees for application under Section 17
of the Act
i)
Name of the Bank: -
j)
Pay Order No: -
_____________
k) Amount
Rs.: -
10.
DETAILS
OF THE INDEX:
-
An Index in duplicate containing the
details of the documents to be relied upon is enclosed.
11.
LIST
OF ENCLOSURES:
-
|
Sl. No. |
Description of Document |
Date / Reference |
|
1 |
Copy of Possession Notice issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security
Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; |
15.11.2025 |
|
2 |
Copy of Demand Notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,
2002, by the Respondent Bank, RO: DGO: RECV: 2024-25; |
29.08.2025 |
|
3 |
Copy of loan sanction letters / account details of the five MSME loan
accounts maintained with Central Bank of India, Katwa Branch (TL-MSME, Cent
Sahyog, FITL MSME Restr, Cent Mortgage Business, Cent GECL 2.0 MSME); |
As per records |
|
4 |
Copy of Representation under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002,
submitted by the Applicant through learned Advocate; |
10.09.2025 |
|
5 |
Copy of letter requesting loan restructuring submitted to the Respondent
Bank; |
21.07.2025 |
|
6 |
Reply from the Respondent Bank to the
above representation; |
23.09.2025 |
|
7 |
Copy of Lease Deed executed in favor of the Applicant as Power of Attorney
holder of Rabiur Rahaman and Rafikur Rahaman, in respect of the
Schedule property; |
21.11.2022 |
SCHEDULE PROPERTY
ABOVE REFERRED TO
Description
of immovable property
ALL
that piece and parcel of the immovable property being at Mouza –
Katwa, J.L. No. 21, Plot Nos. 383/976 and 385/981, within Katwa Municipality,
Holding No. 64, Post Office & Police Station – Katwa, District – Purba Bardhaman,
PIN – 713130, West Bengal, measuring about 07 Satak and 03 Satak of land,
comprising a five-storied
building having approximately 1250 sq. ft. area on each floor,
and bounded
by :
On
the North : Building
of Molla and Others
On the South : Dalal Pukur,
On
the East : Municipal
Road,
On
the West : Dalal
Pukur.
– VERIFICATION –
I, Ashikur Rahaman, Son of
Rabiur Rahaman, being the applicant, hereby solemnly verify that the contents
of paragraphs 1 to 11 are true to my personal knowledge and belief and that I
have not suppressed any material facts.
I sign this Verification on
this 22nd December’ 2025.
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit
of Ashikur Rahaman, Son
of Rabiur Rahaman, aged about 51 years, by faith Muslim, by Occupation Business,
Residing at Kachari Road, Ballari Market Complex, Post Office & Police
Station –Katwa, District – Purba Bardhaman, PIN – 713130, West Bengal.
I,
the above deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-
1
: That I am the applicant, and thoroughly conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the present case and am competent to swear this affidavit.
2
: That the facts contained in my accompanying petition / application, the
contents of which have not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity may be
read as an integral part of this affidavit and are true and correct to my
knowledge.
DEPONENT
Verification
I,
the above named deponent do hereby solemnly verify that the contents of my
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, and no part of it is
false and nothing material has been concealed therein.
Verified
this 22nd day of December’ 2025.
DEPONENT
Identified
by me,
Advocate.
Prepared
in my Chamber,
Advocate.
Dated
: 22nd day of December’ 2025.
N O T A R Y
No comments:
Post a Comment