Reply on behalf of Smt. Supriya Roy, Proprietor of M/s. Sarthik Enterprises, to Legal Demand Notice

 

Ref.: RND / Legal / 3108-5347 / 25          Dated : 16^th day of December’ 2025.

 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 

To,
Mr. Sachetan Ghosh, Advocate
High Court at Calcutta
Chamber No. H-2, Delta House
4, Government Place
Opposite Raj Bhawan
Kolkata – 700001

Mobile : 9051733245,

Email : sachetanghosh@gmail.com

 

And

 

Residing at ;

51/A/1, M. C. Garden Road,

Kolkata – 700030.

Mobile : 9051733245,

Email : sachetanghosh@gmail.com

 

Ref.: Cash Credit Account No. 02190510000397 & FITL Account No. 10600610003510;

 

Sub: Reply on behalf of Smt. Supriya Roy, Proprietor of M/s. Sarthik Enterprises, to Legal Demand Notice dated 02.12.2025 (Ref. No. LN22/0574/2025);

Sir,

Under instructions from and on behalf of my client Smt. Supriya Roy, Proprietor of M/s. Sarthik Enterprises, having its office at 33/1, Netaji Subhas Road, Marshall House, 5th Floor, Room No. 532, Kolkata – 700001, I hereby submit this elaborate reply to the legal demand notice dated 02.12.2025, issued by you purportedly on behalf of UCO Bank, Bentinck Street Branch. Save and except what are matters of record, all allegations, statements, and insinuations contained in the said notice are denied and disputed in toto.

 

1. At the outset, it is stated that the impugned notice is factually inconsistent, legally unsustainable, and demonstrably contrary to the Bank’s own contemporaneous correspondence, and as such, the demand raised therein is arbitrary, inflated, and unenforceable in its present form.

 

2. It is pertinent to place on record that the Bank itself, by its letter bearing Ref. No. UCO/BENT/2025-26/198 dated 19.11.2025, categorically acknowledged that the overdue amount in Cash Credit Account No. 02190510000397 was only Rs. 14,206/- and the overdue amount in FITL Account No. 10600610003510 was only Rs. 8,738/-, and further acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 20,000/- deposited by my client on 19.11.2025. The said letter clearly stipulated that the said minor overdue amounts were required to be cleared by 20.11.2025 and 26.11.2025 respectively, failing which the accounts may be classified as NPA.

 

3. The said letter dated 19.11.2025 further alleged that despite reminders, stock statements were not submitted and insurance claim proceeds were not credited, and on such basis, my client was requested to regularize the accounts within seven days from the date of receipt thereof. It is significant that the Bank, even at that stage, did not treat the accounts as NPA, nor did it demand the entire outstanding amount.

 

4. However, in a most abrupt, arbitrary, and unexplained manner, the Bank thereafter issued another letter being Ref. No. UCO/BENT/2025-26/200 dated 21.11.2025, styled as a “Recall Notice”, wherein it was alleged that the said accounts were classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) on 20.11.2025, and the total debit balance was suddenly stated to be Rs. 30,50,135.91/-, demanding payment of the entire amount within seven days. The said recall notice does not disclose any calculation, break-up, or basis for such sudden escalation of liability.

 

 

 

 

5. Thereafter, the impugned legal notice dated 02.12.2025 claims a sum of Rs. 30,45,703.85/-, which is inconsistent not only with the Bank’s letter dated 19.11.2025 but also with its own recall notice dated 21.11.2025, thereby clearly exposing contradictions, discrepancies, and non-application of mind in the computation of alleged dues.

 

6. It is therefore emphatically denied that the sum claimed in the legal notice is legally due, payable, or recoverable from my client. The Bank has failed to furnish any updated, certified, and reconciled statement of account, and in the absence thereof, the demand raised is illusory, speculative, and untenable.

 

7. It is further stated that my client has already paid approximately Rs. 24,00,000/- in the Cash Credit Account and approximately Rs. 2,00,000/- in the FITL Account, over a period of time. These substantial repayments are matters of record in the Bank’s own system and have been conveniently ignored while raising the impugned demand.

 

8. Without prejudice to the above, it is stated that the business of M/s. Sarthik Enterprises has been severely and irreversibly affected in the post-COVID-19 period, resulting in complete stagnation and virtual closure of business operations. As of date, my client does not have any active business, income stream, or commercial activity, a fact well known to the Bank.

 

9. Despite such extraordinary financial distress, my client has at all material times acted bona fide, without any dishonest intention, and has continued to make payments to the Bank to the best of her limited capacity, including the recent payment acknowledged by the Bank itself. The allegations of deliberate default, financial indiscipline, or mala fide conduct are therefore false, baseless, and denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. The abrupt classification of the accounts as NPA, issuance of recall notice, and subsequent legal demand, without granting reasonable opportunity, without reconciliation of accounts, and without adherence to settled banking norms and RBI guidelines, is arbitrary, premature, and liable to be set aside if challenged before the appropriate forum.

 

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, my client hereby calls upon the Bank to withdraw the impugned legal notice, furnish detailed and reconciled statements of account, and consider my client’s case sympathetically in light of her bona fide conduct and severe financial hardship.

 

12. It is made clear that any coercive, precipitative, or recovery action initiated on the basis of the disputed and inconsistent demand shall be strictly contested before the appropriate legal forum, and the Bank shall be solely responsible for all costs, consequences, and liabilities arising therefrom.

 

13. This reply is issued without prejudice to all rights, remedies, and contentions of my client available in law and equity, including the right to challenge the classification of the account as NPA and the computation of alleged dues.

 

Thanking you,

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

Rabindra Nath Das

Advocate
High Court Calcutta

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copy to ;

 

The Branch Manager,

UCO Bank,

Bentick Street Branch,

Commerce House,

1^st Floor,

2, G. C. Avenue,

Kolkata – 700013

Phone No.: (033) 22132077,

Email : bentin@ucobank.co.in

 

{For information & necessary action}