Tuesday, December 16, 2025

WRITTEN OBJECTIONS of the Certificate Debtors No. 1, 2, and 3

 

BEFORE THE Ld. RECOVERY OFFICER
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – I, KOLKATA

 

R.C. No. 64 of 2024
(Arising out of O.A. No. 251 of 2009)

 

In the matter of ;

Bank of Baroda

… Certificate Holder Bank

 

-Versus-

 

M/s. Apurba Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

… Certificate Debtors

 

WRITTEN OBJECTIONS

{of the Certificate Debtors No. 1, 2, and 3};

 

The Certificate Debtors No. 1, 2 and 3 above-named MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT;

Showeth as follows;

 

  1. That the present petition filed by the Certificate Holder Bank seeking appointment of a Receiver/Special Officer, proclamation of sale and auction of the so-called schedule property, is wholly premature, legally untenable, procedurally defective and liable to be rejected in limine. The Bank has not followed the mandatory statutory procedure prescribed under Sections 25 to 29 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 read with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 which governs all recovery proceedings before this Hon’ble Tribunal. Without strict compliance of the statutory procedure, no coercive steps such as appointment of Receiver or sale proclamation can legally be ordered.

 

  1. That the allegation of “service of demand notice” upon the Certificate Debtors is specifically and categorically denied. The Certificate Debtors state that they have not been served with any valid demand notice in accordance with the Act. The Certificate Holder Bank has not produced any acknowledgment card, postal receipt, speed post tracking report, proof of affixture, or any certificate of service which is mandatory before initiating any coercive execution step. In absence of valid service, the entire petition is vitiated and unsustainable.

 

 

  1. That the Bank has materially suppressed and concealed important facts which go to the root of the matter and directly affect the maintainability of the present petition. The Bank has suppressed the fact that Certificate Debtor No. 4 has already disputed the ownership of the alleged schedule property and that the so-called “declaration/affidavit” relied upon by the Bank is neither a title deed, nor a registered conveyance, nor a conclusive proof of ownership. The Bank has deliberately avoided disclosing that the property is not registered in the name of Certificate Debtor No. 4 and therefore cannot be treated as his attachable or saleable asset in law.

 

  1. That the Bank’s reliance on a unilateral self-serving affidavit dated 22.11.2004 is wholly misplaced, illegal, and insufficient to establish ownership of immovable property. It is settled law that immovable property can be transferred or owned only through a registered deed of conveyance, and no affidavit or declaration creates or confers title. In absence of any title deed, record of rights, or any authentic ownership document, the Bank’s attempt to portray the schedule property as an attachable asset is legally unsustainable. Therefore, any prayer for sale, auction or appointment of Receiver in respect of such property is wholly without jurisdiction.

 

  1. That the Bank has unlawfully bypassed the mandatory step of attachment. Attachment of property is a condition precedent before any proclamation of sale. Without a lawful order of attachment, after providing opportunity to the Certificate Debtors and adjudicating, no further recovery action can proceed. The Bank has made no application seeking attachment and the Hon’ble Recovery Officer has not passed any attachment order. Thus, the prayer for proclamation of sale is premature, illegal, and non-maintainable.

 

  1. That the Bank has attempted to rely upon a valuation report dated 20.05.2025 which is completely unacceptable, fabricated behind the back of the Certificate Debtors, and based on incorrect assumptions. No notice of valuation was ever given to the Certificate Debtors; no joint inspection was conducted; no boundary identification was carried out; and no property documents were verified before valuation. The alleged distress value of Rs. 2,87,49,600/- is therefore arbitrary, unscientific and vitiated. Without verifying title, no valuation can ever be carried out. The Bank’s reliance on such a defective valuation report shows malafide intention of obtaining an ex parte sale without proper procedure.

 

  1. That it is pertinent to state that in the pleading given by the Certificate Holder Bank about a valuation Report dated 20-05-2025, but the annexure of the said alleged Valuation Report appearing of the different date as 22.09.2025, which stated about the Valuation Report of Land situated at Premises No. 4519, Naredrapur Station Road, Sonargsaon 1 No. Gate, Teghoria, Pin – 700150, P.S. Narendrapur, District South 24 Parganas. The said premises is not the subject matter of the recovery proceeding as the same is not the subject of the Judgment dated 4th March, 2024, passed in O.A. No. 251 of 2009, by the Hon’ble DRT Kolkata – 1, the respective portion of the said Judgment herein refurnished as follows;

 

“It is declared that the claim is secured by movable/ immovable property described in the Schedule X & Y of the OA at page 283”.

 

The page 293 of the said OA application contained the Schedule –X being the description of Moveable Property and the Schedule – Y being the description of Immovable Property, as (i) ALL THAT piece and parcel of land admeasuring 60 Satak i.e. 36.3 Cottaha be the same little more or less situated at Mouza - Tegharia, Post Office Ramkrishnapally, J.L. No. 52, Khatian No. 169 (R.S., 82(J.R.) Dag No. 355 (R.S.), 382 (L.R.) under Rajpur-Udaipur, Municipality, 24 Parganas (S), and (ii) ALL That piece and parcel of land admeasuring about an area of 89.44 Satak i.e. 54.11 Kathas situated at Muza - Teghoria, Post Office Ramkrishnapally, Police Station - Sonarpur, Khatian No. 169, Touzi No. 294, J.L. No. 52, R.S. Dag No. & L.R. Dag No. 24, Municipal Ward No. 7, under Sonarpur Municipality, District South 24 Parganas;

 

Which are clearly established the said alleged valuation report is not in relation to the subjected property for the purpose of recovery, whatsoever?

 

8.   That it is an admitted position, apparent from the pleadings of the Certificate Holder Bank itself, that no equitable mortgage under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was ever created in respect of the scheduled property, inasmuch as the original title deeds of the said property were never deposited with the Bank at any point of time with intent to create security.

 

  1. That it is further admitted that there is no registered mortgage deed, no memorandum of deposit of title deeds, and no document whatsoever evidencing creation of any charge or encumbrance over the scheduled property in favour of the Certificate Holder Bank.

 

  1. That in absence of deposit of original title deeds, no equitable mortgage can be said to exist in the eyes of law, and mere intention, assertion or declaration cannot substitute the mandatory statutory requirement prescribed under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

 

11.                That the entire reliance of the Certificate Holder Bank is upon an affidavit dated 22.11.2004, allegedly executed by the CD no. 4, declaring ownership of the property, which affidavit has been annexed with the Original Application and again relied upon in the present recovery proceedings.

 

  1. That the schedule given by the certificate holder bank presently as SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of land at about 44 Decimal or 26.62 Cottah (more or less) being Premises No. 4519, Narendrapur Station Road, Sonagaon 1 No. Gate, Teghoria, Pin - 700 150, P.S. Sonarpur, District. South 24 Parganas (as per local enquiry) being Mouza- Teghoria, J.L. No. 52, Touzi No. 294, R.S. No. 126, Dag Nos. 24, L.R. Khatian No. 169 in the name of Certificate debtor No.4 MR.YEAR ALI MALLICK, is not appearing in Original application, as well as in the Recovery proceeding, ever. Therefore what transpire from the page number 9 as well as the page number 283, of the said Original Application are as Collateral (i) ALL THAT piece and parcel of land adneasuring 60 Satak i.e. 36.3 Cottaha be the same little more or less situated at Mouza - Tegharia, Post Office Ramkrishnapally, J.L. No. 52, Khatian No. 169 (R.S., 82(J.R.) Dag No. 355 (R.S.), 382 (L.R.) under Rajpur-Udaipur, Municipality, 24 Parganas (S), and (ii) ALL That piece and parcel of land admeasuring about an area of 89.44 Satak i.e. 54.11 Kathas situated at Muza - Teghoria, Post Office Ramkrishnapally, Police Station - Sonarpur, Khatian No. 169, Touzi No. 294, J.L. No. 52, R.S. Dag No. & L.R. Dag No. 24, Municipal Ward No. 7, under Sonarpur Municipality, District South 24 Parganas, are altogether much different and not in consonance with whatever stated or given earlier by the certificate holder bank, even the full details of the property given in the said declaration dated 22-11-2004 of the CD no. 4, appearing as Landed property measuring an area of 149.44 sataks be the same little more or less situated and lying at mouza Teghoria, P.O. Ramkrishnapally, P.S. Sonarpur, R.S. No. 126, Touzi no. 294, J.L. No. 52, Khatian no. 169, R.S. L.R. Dag No. 24 and 355, under Rajpur- Sonarpur Municipality, District South 24 Parganas, are different in description & particulars as well as in the measurement of the Land.

 

  1. That the present application of the Certificate Holder Bank suffers from a further fatal defect inasmuch as the immovable property now sought to be attached, placed under receivership and sold was never disclosed, pleaded or described in the Original Application being O.A. No. 251 of 2009, from which the present Recovery Certificate has arisen.

 

  1. That the Schedule property presently described by the Certificate Holder Bank as: “All that piece and parcel of land at about 44 Decimal or 26.62 Cottah (more or less) being Premises No. 4519, Narendrapur Station Road, Sonagaon 1 No. Gate, Teghoria, P.S. Sonarpur, District South 24 Parganas, Mouza-Teghoria, J.L. No. 52, Touzi No. 294, R.S. No. 126, Dag Nos. 24, L.R. Khatian No. 169” does not find place anywhere in the pleadings, schedules or reliefs of the Original Application.

 

  1. That what transpires from page no. 9 of the Original Application clearly shows that the alleged “collateral security” pleaded therein is entirely different, distinct and not in consonance with the present Schedule.

 

  1. That the properties disclosed in the Original Application as alleged collateral are described as follows: (i) ALL THAT piece and parcel of land admeasuring 60 Satak i.e. 36.3 Cottah, more or less, situated at Mouza–Tegharia, P.O. Ramkrishnapally, J.L. No. 52, Khatian No. 169 (R.S. & J.R.), Dag No. 355 (R.S.) and 382 (L.R.), under Rajpur–Udaipur Municipality, District South 24 Parganas; AND (ii) ALL THAT piece and parcel of land admeasuring about 89.44 Satak i.e. 54.11 Kathas, situated at Mouza–Teghoria, P.O. Ramkrishnapally, P.S. Sonarpur, Khatian No. 169, Touzi No. 294, J.L. No. 52, R.S. Dag No. & L.R. Dag No. 24, Municipal Ward No. 7, under Sonarpur Municipality, District South 24 Parganas.

 

  1. That a bare comparison of the aforesaid descriptions with the present Schedule unmistakably demonstrates that: a) the area and measurement are materially different; b) the number of plots / dags are not identical; c) the municipal descriptions and situational particulars do not match; d) the present Schedule refers to Premises No. 4519, Narendrapur Station Road, which is completely absent from the Original Application.

 

  1. That the present Schedule property is therefore not the same property which was even allegedly referred to in the Original Application, and the Bank is attempting to introduce a new, altered and enlarged Schedule at the execution stage, which is wholly impermissible in law.

 

  1. That it is a settled principle that recovery proceedings are confined strictly to the pleadings, properties and reliefs as disclosed in the Original Application and crystallised in the Recovery Certificate, and no new property can be introduced for the first time at the stage of execution.

 

  1. That the Recovery Officer derives jurisdiction only from the Recovery Certificate, and the Certificate in turn flows from the Original Application; therefore, any property not forming part of the Original Application cannot be subjected to attachment, receivership or sale in recovery proceedings.

 

  1. That the attempt of the Certificate Holder Bank to proceed against a property which was never part of the Original Application amounts to enlarging the scope of the decree at the execution stage, which is ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction.

 

  1. That the illegality in the present proceedings is twofold: firstly, there is no creation of any mortgage or security interest in law; secondly, the property now sought to be proceeded against was never part of the Original Application or the Recovery Certificate.

 

  1. That even assuming without admitting that any affidavit exists, such affidavit cannot cure the fundamental defect arising from absence of mortgage and absence of identity of the property.

 

  1. That permitting attachment or sale of the present Schedule property would amount to depriving the objector of his property without authority of law and would result in gross miscarriage of justice.

 

  1. That on this ground alone, the present application for attachment, appointment of Receiver / Special Officer and proclamation of sale is liable to be rejected in limine as being beyond the scope of the Original Application and the Recovery Certificate.

 

  1. That without prejudice to the earlier objections and assuming without admitting the existence or evidentiary value of the alleged affidavit or declaration dated 22.11.2004, it is submitted that even the said affidavit does not support the present Schedule now sought to be proceeded against by the Certificate Holder Bank.

 

  1. That the alleged affidavit / declaration, upon which the Certificate Holder Bank has placed heavy reliance, describes the property in the following manner: “Landed property measuring an area of 149.44 Satak, be the same little more or less, situated and lying at Mouza – Teghoria, Post Office – Ramkrishnapally, Police Station – Sonarpur, R.S. No. 126, Touzi No. 294, J.L. No. 52, Khatian No. 169, R.S. / L.R. Dag Nos. 24 and 355 under Rajpur – Sonarpur Municipality, District South 24 Parganas.”

 

  1. That a bare comparison of the above description with the present Schedule property makes it abundantly clear that the two are materially different and do not refer to one and the same immovable property.

 

  1. That the present Schedule relied upon by the Certificate Holder Bank describes a property measuring about 44 Decimal or 26.62 Cottah, bearing Premises No. 4519, Narendrapur Station Road, Sonagaon 1 No. Gate, Teghoria, whereas the affidavit refers to a consolidated landed property measuring 149.44 Satak, without any Premises Number, road description or boundary particulars.

 

  1. That the area, extent, manner of identification and situational particulars of the property mentioned in the affidavit are wholly inconsistent with the present Schedule, and the discrepancy is not minor or clerical but goes to the root of the identity of the property itself.

 

  1. That further, the affidavit refers to multiple Dag numbers, namely Dag Nos. 24 and 355, forming a composite landed property, whereas the present Schedule selectively refers only to Dag No. 24 and seeks to carve out a portion thereof, which is impermissible at the execution stage.

 

  1. That no document has been produced by the Certificate Holder Bank to demonstrate how or when the property described in the affidavit allegedly transformed, fragmented or got re-identified into the present Schedule property now sought to be sold.

 

  1. That certainty of identification is a sine qua non for attachment, appointment of Receiver or sale of immovable property, and where the identity of the property itself is doubtful, no coercive step can be legally sustained.

 

  1. That in the present case, three different descriptions of property are emerging from the Bank’s own records, namely: a) the description in the Original Application; b) the description in the alleged affidavit / declaration; and c) the description in the present Schedule.

 

  1. That the aforesaid descriptions are not in harmony with each other and create irreconcilable ambiguity as to which property is actually sought to be proceeded against.

 

  1. That such uncertainty renders the entire recovery process arbitrary and unsustainable, as neither the Recovery Officer nor the Certificate Debtor can ascertain with certainty the exact immovable property sought to be attached and sold.

 

  1.  That attachment and sale of immovable property without clear, consistent and unimpeachable identification is contrary to law and settled principles governing execution proceedings.

 

  1. That in absence of identity and continuity of the property from the stage of Original Application till execution, the present proceedings are vitiated and liable to be dropped.

 

  1. That the Certificate Holder Bank cannot be permitted to proceed on shifting, inconsistent and mutually destructive descriptions of property to the grave prejudice of the present objector.

 

  1. That the cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts is that: i) no mortgage or security interest exists; ii) the present Schedule was never part of the Original Application; and iii) even the affidavit relied upon by the Bank does not correspond to the present Schedule.

 

  1. That on this count alone, the application for attachment, appointment of Receiver / Special Officer and sale of the scheduled property is liable to be rejected in limine.

 

  1. That the Certificate Debtors respectfully submit this Written Objection against the purported Schedule of Property filed by the Certificate Holder Bank in connection with the present Certificate Proceedings, wherein the Bank has sought to proceed against a property which does not belong to Certificate Debtors Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

 

  1. That the property as described by the Bank is stated to be: “All that piece and parcel of land at about 44 Decimal or 26.62 Cottah (more or less) being Premises No. 4519, Narendrapur Station Road, Sonagaon 1 No. Gate, Teghoria, P.S. Sonarpur, District: South 24 Parganas (as per local enquiry), being Mouza–Teghoria, J.L. No. 52, Touzi No. 294, R.S. No. 126, Dag No. 24, L.R. Khatian No. 169, recorded in the name of Certificate Debtor No. 4, Shri Year Ali Mallick.”

 

  1. That the above schedule itself clearly reveals that the said property belongs exclusively to Certificate Debtor No. 4 (an independent individual) and NOT to Certificate Debtors Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are a separate juristic entity and its directors. The Bank’s attempt to include the said land in the “Schedule of Attached Property” against CD Nos. 1 to 3 is illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to the statute.

 

  1. That during the entire loan sanction, enhancement, renewal and documentation process, the Bank never obtained any document, undertaking, NOC or title deed from CD No. 4 relating to the land described above. Hence, the attempt to proceed against such third-party property is without jurisdiction.

 

  1. That the Bank is misleading this Hon’ble Authority by mixing the property of an independent person (CD No. 4) with the liability of a private limited company and its directors (CD Nos. 1–3). Such conflation is impermissible in law, as each Certificate Debtor is separate and distinct, and liability cannot be shifted to third-party assets unless the property is proved to be mortgaged or voluntarily offered.

 

  1.  That the Certificate Debtor No. 4 is not a guarantor, not a mortgagor, and not a security provider in any form for the credit facilities enjoyed by CD Nos. 1–3. Therefore, his land cannot be attached, seized, proceeded against, sold or encumbered under the present proceeding.

 

  1. That the schedule of property filed by the Bank is also defective, vague and unreliable due to the following reasons: (a) The Bank admits the particulars are based on “local enquiry”, meaning no authenticated records or title verification have been produced. (b) No mutation certificate, ROR, Khatian, deed, or survey map has been filed to demonstrate bank interest. (c) The property description shows no connection with the loan account, the company, or the alleged outstanding.

 

  1. That the Hon’ble Certificate Officer cannot attach, seize or sell a property merely because a person is arrayed as CD No. 4, unless the liability is proved to be joint and several and unless the loan documents create a specific charge on that property.

 

  1. That it has been consistently held by Courts that third-party property cannot be attached in loan recovery proceedings unless the property is mortgaged or expressly charged. The law is settled that ownership must be established before attachment.

 

  1. That it is a settled principle of law that an affidavit is not an instrument of transfer, mortgage or charge and has no conveyancing value whatsoever, and no right, title or interest in immovable property can be created, transferred or encumbered by way of affidavit.

 

  1. That a mere declaration of ownership by the Certificate Debtor no. 4, Year Ali Mallick, does not, either expressly or impliedly, create any security interest in favour of the Bank, nor does it convert an unsecured liability into a secured one.

 

  1. That therefore, the scheduled property never became a “secured asset” of the Certificate Holder Bank, and the Bank has no enforceable right over the said property in recovery proceedings.

 

54.                That the jurisdictions of the Learned Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 are purely executory in nature and confined to execution of the Recovery Certificate as issued by the Hon’ble Tribunal.

 

  1. That the Learned Recovery Officer does not possess adjudicatory jurisdiction to decide questions of title, nor can the Recovery Officer presume, infer or create a mortgage or charge where none exists in law.

 

  1. That attachment and sale of immovable property is permissible only when the property is legally attachable in execution of the Recovery Certificate, and such attachment cannot be ordered in respect of property over which the Certificate Holder has no legally enforceable security interest.

 

  1. That permitting attachment and sale of the different scheduled property in the present case would amount to conferring jurisdiction upon the Recovery Officer which the statute does not contemplate.

 

58.                That the Certificate Holder Bank has relied upon a valuation report obtained from a private empanelled valuer after issuance of the Recovery Certificate, which valuation report is wholly irrelevant and inconsequential for the purpose of determining existence of any security interest.

 

  1. That valuation presupposes a lawful and existing mortgage or charge, and in absence thereof, the valuation report neither validates the Bank’s claim nor cures the fundamental defect of lack of security.

 

  1. That the act of obtaining valuation of an unsecured property cannot, in law, clothe the Bank with rights which it never possessed.

 

61.                That appointment of a Receiver or Special Officer over immovable property is a drastic and extraordinary measure, which can be resorted to only when the applicant establishes a strong prima facie legal interest arising out of a valid mortgage or charge.

 

  1. That in the present case, the Certificate Holder Bank has failed to establish any legal interest whatsoever in the scheduled property, and therefore, appointment of Receiver or Special Officer would be wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of settled principles of law.

 

63.                That the present application is a clear attempt by the Certificate Holder Bank to convert an unsecured debt into a secured one through execution proceedings, which is impermissible in law.

 

  1. That the Bank, having failed to create any mortgage at the time of sanction of loan, cannot now be permitted to indirectly achieve what it could not do directly.

 

  1. That the present proceedings, if allowed to continue, would result in grave miscarriage of justice and cause irreparable loss and prejudice to the present objector.

 

  1. That even the alleged outstanding amount is disputed. The Bank has claimed an exaggerated and inflated figure of Rs. 14,72,94,994.85 without furnishing the detailed computation of interest, penal interest, charges, repayments, debits/credits or any certified statement in accordance with the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act. Without proper verification and reconciliation of accounts, the Certificate Debtors cannot be subjected to any coercive sale proceedings.

 

67.     That the Certificate Debtors, in order to amicably settle the matter and discharge their liability, have submitted a One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposal before the Certificate Holder Bank, which is under active consideration of the competent authority of the Bank.

 

Photostat copy of all communications pursuing the OTS Settlement between the Certificate Debtors & the Certificate Holder Bank and the Demand Draft of ₹10,94,894.80/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Four and paise Eighty) only, are collectively annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – “A”.

 

68. That in good faith and in pursuance of such proposed settlement, the Certificate Debtors have already deposited a sum of ₹10,94,894.80/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand and Eight Hundred Ninety Four and paise Eighty only) with the Certificate Holder Bank towards the proposed OTS, the receipt of which has been duly acknowledged by the Bank.

 

  1. That the said proposal for OTS is still pending decision before the Certificate Holder Bank, and the Certificate Debtors are in regular communication with the Bank for early finalization of the same.

 

  1. That in view of the pending OTS proposal and part payment already made, continuation of coercive recovery proceedings at this stage may frustrate the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties and cause irreparable prejudice to the Certificate Debtors.

 

  1. That it is well settled that where the borrower and the bank are engaged in bona fide settlement negotiations, the recovery proceedings may be kept in abeyance for a reasonable period to facilitate such settlement, particularly when substantial payment has already been made.

 

  1. That the Certificate Debtors undertake to abide by the terms of the OTS if approved and not to alienate or dispose of any assets if any, pending such consideration.

 

  1. That the Certificate Debtors state that they have never avoided the process of law and are willing to cooperate in the recovery proceedings and even to explore a viable settlement mechanism. Therefore, coercive steps like appointment of Receiver or proclamation of sale, which are harsh and irreversible, are wholly unwarranted and will cause severe and irreparable injury to the Certificate Debtors. It is settled law that such extreme steps should be taken only as a last resort and only after full compliance of all statutory safeguards, which is completely absent in the present case.

 

  1. That for all the aforesaid reasons, the Bank’s petition suffers from gross irregularities, material suppression, procedural illegality, absence of jurisdictional foundation, and violation of mandatory statutory requirements. The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed with costs.

 

In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the Certificate Debtors most humbly pray that this Hon’ble Recovery Officer may graciously be pleased to;

 

a)  Reject the petition filed by the Certificate Holder Bank seeking appointment of Receiver/Special Officer;

 

b)  Reject the prayer for proclamation of sale and auction of the alleged schedule property;

 

c)  Direct that any recovery action be taken strictly in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Act;

 

d)  Pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.

 

And for this act of kindness the Certificate Debtors shall ever pray.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AFFIDAVIT

 

I, Dulal Chandra Naskar, Son of Late Lalit Mohan Naskar, aged about 56 years, by faith Hindu, by Occupation Business, residing at Village – Tegharia, Post Office – Ramkrishna Pally, Police Station – Sonarpur, Kolkata 700150, District – South 24 Parganas, do hereby solemnly affirm and says as follows;

 

1.   That I am being the Defendant No. 2 / CD No. 2, in the present Recovery Proceeding. I am authorized by the Defendant nos. 1, & 3, / CD Nos. 1& 3, herein in the present Recovery Proceeding by the Board Resolution. I am one of the Director of the CD No. 1, herein and the CD No. 3, is also one of the Director of the CD No.1, herein M/s. Apurba Overseas Private Limited. I and the CD No.3 are the Directors and the Guarantors. I am Competent to swear this Affidavit.

 

2.   That since the OTS proposal is pending and substantial payment has been made, continuation of coercive recovery proceedings, including submission of assets, may adversely affect the ongoing settlement process and cause irreparable prejudice to the deponent.

 

3.   That the deponent undertakes not to transfer, alienate, or encumber any movable or immovable property pending consideration of the OTS proposal by the Bank.

 

4.   That the deponent therefore prays that this Hon’ble Recovery Officer may be pleased to keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance till the Bank decides on the pending OTS proposal, and to pass such further or other order as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

 

5.   That the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

 

 

DEPONENT

Identified by me,

 

Advocate

Prepared in my Chamber,

 

 

Advocate

Date : ____day of December’ 2025;

Place : Kolkata, West Bengal

NOTARY

Before the Hon’ble Recovery Officer

In the Debts Recovery Tribunal Kolkata–1,

9th Floor, Jeevan Sudha Building, 42-C, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Kolkata – 700071

 

RC/64/2024

in

OA/251/2009

 

In the matter of;

Bank of Baroda,

                                 ________Applicant/CHB

 

-        Versus–

 

M/s. Apurba Overseas Private Limited and Others,

                                 ________Defendants/CD

 

 

 

 

WRITTEN OBJECTION OF THE CERTIFICATE DEBTOR NO. 1, 2, & 3, M/S. APURBA OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS;

 

 

 

 

Advocate-On-Record;

 

Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate

High Court Bar association Room No. 15, High Court Calcutta Mobile Number : 9883070666 / 9836829666 Email : aksinghadvocate@rediffmail.com

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)