BY SPEED POST
WITH A/D, E-MAIL AND COURIER
WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
Date: 12th day of August’
2026
To
The Authorised Officer,
Punjab National Bank
ARMB, Murshidabad
Circle
Office Murshidabad
3rd Floor, BSNL Telephone Exchange Building,
Cantonment Road, P.O. & P.S. Berhampore,
District Murshidabad, West Bengal – 742101.
Email:
chmurshidabad@pnb.bank.in
In the matter of:
M/s. H.M. Enterprise
and its alleged Partners/Noticees:
1.
Smt. Hasna Bewa, W/o Late Janaruddin Sekh; and
2.
Shri Mehboob Sk, S/o Late Janaruddin Sekh.
|
H. M. Enterprise |
Hasna Bewa |
Mehboob Sk |
Subject: Reply-cum-Objection under Section 13(3A) of
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 against the purported Demand Notice under Section
13(2), with particular reference to the pending O.A. No. 15 of 2024 before the Learned
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Siliguri, the earlier Demand Notice dated 02.07.2021,
the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2024 passed in S.A. Nos. 26 of 2022 and 27
of 2022, and the subsequent withdrawal of the earlier Demand Notice by the Bank
itself.
Ref.:
- Purported
Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act bearing ARMB/SARFAESI NOTICE/29/2026-27 and dated
20.06.2025;
- O.A. No. 15 of 2024, Punjab National Bank v.
M/s. H.M. Enterprise & Ors., pending before the Learned DRT,
Siliguri;
- Judgment
and Order dated 29.07.2024
passed by the Learned DRT, Siliguri in S.A. Nos. 26 of 2022 and 27 of 2022;
- Earlier
Demand Notice dated 02.07.2021
issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.
SIR/MADAM,
Under
instructions from and on behalf of my above-named clients M/s. H.M. Enterprise and its alleged
Partners/Noticees: 1: Smt. Hasna Bewa,
W/o Late Janaruddin Sekh; and 2: Shri
Mehboob Sk, S/o Late Janaruddin Sekh, I hereby submit this Reply-cum-Objection under Section 13(3A) of
the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the purported Demand Notice issued by your
Bank under Section 13(2) of the said Act.
The
purported Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, bearing ARMB/SARFAESI NOTICE/29/2026-27
and dated 20.06.2025, suffers from a serious and unexplained
discrepancy regarding its issuance, dispatch and service. Although the notice
bears the aforesaid date, the same was actually booked for dispatch by the Bank at BO Berhampore
only on 29.06.2026 and was ultimately delivered to my clients
only on 03.07.2026
at about 12:13 p.m. A notice under Section 13(2) is a statutory
notice carrying a specific statutory consequence and providing the borrower a
period of sixty
days to discharge the alleged liability. The Bank, therefore,
is specifically called upon to explain why the notice was retained and not
dispatched immediately, why there was such an unexplained delay between the
date appearing on the notice and its actual booking for dispatch, and on what
basis the Bank proposes to reckon the statutory period. My clients submit that
the Bank cannot, by its own delay in dispatching the statutory notice, curtail
or prejudice the statutory opportunity available to the borrowers.
The aforesaid discrepancy
assumes greater significance in view of the pending O.A. No.15 of 2024 before the Learned DRT,
Siliguri, the earlier SARFAESI proceedings and the Judgment and
Order dated 29.07.2024,
pursuant to which the Bank itself has stated in the present notice that the
earlier Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 02.07.2021 was withdrawn. In such
circumstances, the Bank was under a heightened obligation to act strictly,
transparently and diligently in issuing and serving any fresh statutory demand.
My clients accordingly call upon the Bank to furnish the complete dispatch register, postal
booking receipt dated 29.06.2026, tracking report, office record showing
approval/signing of the notice and all contemporaneous records relating to its
dispatch and service, and to specifically clarify the legally
operative date from which the sixty-day statutory period is to be reckoned.
Until such objection is duly considered and a reasoned decision is communicated
under Section 13(3A), the Bank ought not to take any coercive measure under
Section 13(4), particularly on the basis of any alleged expiry of a statutory
period calculated from a date earlier than the date of actual valid service
upon my clients.
At
the outset, my clients categorically
deny and dispute the alleged liability, the quantum claimed, the account-wise
calculation, the alleged accrual of interest and penal interest, the alleged
classification of the accounts, the enforceability of the alleged security
interest to the extent claimed, and all other allegations and assertions
contained in the said Demand Notice, save and except such matters as are
expressly admitted herein.
The
present Reply-cum-Objection is being submitted without prejudice to all rights, claims, objections, defences and
remedies of my clients in the pending proceedings before the Learned Debts
Recovery Tribunal and before any other competent court or forum.
1. At the very outset,
it is necessary to place before the Authorised Officer a fundamental and material circumstance which
directly affects the basis and sustainability of the present Demand Notice.
The Bank has already instituted O.A.
No.15 of 2024 before the Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Siliguri,
against my clients, claiming recovery of an alleged sum of Rs.95,63,554.87/-, together with
interest and other alleged charges. The said O.A. is admittedly pending adjudication and the alleged
liability therein has been specifically and categorically disputed by the
Defendants.
2. The Bank's claim in
the pending O.A. is not an admitted or adjudicated liability. The Defendants
have already filed their Written Statements traversing the allegations of the
Bank and disputing, inter alia, the alleged outstanding amount, the
account-wise liability, the basis of calculation, the transactions, repayments,
interest and other components of the alleged debt. The Bank has thereafter
filed its Rejoinder disputing the defence taken by the Defendants. Thus, the
question as to what amount, if any, is
legally due and recoverable from the Defendants remains a live and contested
issue before the Learned DRT.
3. It is further
material to point out that the Bank's claim in the pending O.A. was founded,
inter alia, upon the alleged loan accounts and upon the earlier statutory
proceedings initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, including the Demand
Notice dated 02.07.2021 issued
under Section 13(2). The Bank itself pleaded in the O.A. that the Defendants
had been called upon by the Demand Notice dated 02.07.2021 to discharge the
alleged liabilities and that, upon failure to do so, the Bank proceeded to take
measures under the SARFAESI Act.
4. The said earlier
SARFAESI proceedings, however, became the subject matter of S.A. Nos.26 of 2022 and 27 of 2022
before the Learned DRT, Siliguri. The Defendants challenged the measures taken
by the Bank and questioned the legality and validity of the proceedings
initiated pursuant to the earlier Demand Notice.
5. The Learned DRT,
Siliguri, by its Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2024, dealt with the said SARFAESI proceedings and set aside
the possession notice dated 05.11.2021, while granting liberty to the secured
creditor to proceed afresh in accordance with law. The said Judgment is
therefore a material and binding part of the subsequent history of the dispute.
6. The present Demand
Notice contains a particularly significant statement made by the Bank itself. At
the foot/end of the present notice, the Bank expressly states that “We hereby withdraw the demand notice dated
02.07.2021, under 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002, in compliance with the order
dated 29.07.2024 by the Hon'ble DRT Siliguri in SA 26 of 2022.” The said
statement constitutes an important admission by the Bank concerning the legal
status of its earlier statutory Demand Notice.
7. In view of the
aforesaid express statement, the Bank cannot dispute the fact that the earlier
Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 02.07.2021 has been withdrawn by the Bank itself. The Bank has consciously chosen to
state that such withdrawal was made in compliance with the Judgment and Order
dated 29.07.2024.
8. My clients therefore
call upon the Bank to explain a serious and fundamental inconsistency which
arises from the Bank's own pleadings and conduct. If the Bank has itself
withdrawn the earlier Demand Notice dated 02.07.2021, then the Bank must
explain: How and why does the Bank
continue to rely upon the same earlier Demand Notice, its contents, its alleged
service and the consequences allegedly flowing therefrom in the pending O.A.
No.15 of 2024?
9. This is not a mere
technical objection. The Bank cannot simultaneously adopt two mutually
inconsistent positions, namely: First:
that the earlier Demand Notice dated 02.07.2021 has been withdrawn pursuant to
the DRT's Judgment dated 29.07.2024; and Secondly: that the very same Demand Notice continues to constitute
a foundational document for the Bank's recovery claim in the pending O.A. The
Bank must clarify its legal and factual position in this regard.
10.
My
clients submit that the present Demand Notice can only be understood in one of
two possible ways. Either the Bank intends the present notice to constitute a completely fresh and independent Demand
Notice under Section 13(2), in which event the Bank must establish a
fresh, clear, correct and independently ascertainable outstanding liability as
on the date of such fresh demand; or the Bank intends the present notice to be
treated as a continuation or revival of the earlier Demand Notice, in which
event the Bank must explain the legal basis upon which a Demand Notice which it
expressly states to have been withdrawn can be revived or continued.
11.
The
Bank cannot be permitted to proceed upon an uncertain and shifting foundation. A
fresh statutory demand must be based upon a clear and ascertainable debt, and the borrower must be afforded a
meaningful opportunity to understand the precise amount claimed and the basis
thereof.
12.
If,
therefore, the present notice is intended to be a fresh statutory demand, the
Bank is required to disclose a complete
and fresh account-wise computation, rather than merely reproduce or
carry forward figures which were previously disputed and which formed part of
an earlier statutory process that has subsequently been withdrawn.
13.
A
further serious issue arises from the substantial difference between the amount
claimed by the Bank in the pending O.A. and the amount now demanded under the
present Section 13(2) notice. In O.A.
No.15 of 2024, the Bank has claimed approximately Rs.95,63,554.87/-. The present Demand
Notice, however, claims an aggregate amount of approximately Rs.1,18,45,771.87/- as on 31.05.2026.
14.
The
difference is substantial and cannot be brushed aside as an ordinary variation
without a proper reconciliation. The Bank must specifically disclose how the
alleged liability has increased from the amount claimed in the O.A. to the
substantially higher amount demanded under the present notice.
15.
My
clients therefore call upon the Bank to furnish a complete reconciliation statement showing (i) the
amount claimed in the O.A.; (ii) the principal outstanding; (iii) interest
claimed in the O.A.; (iv) interest accrued thereafter; (v) penal interest; (vi)
charges; (vii) expenses; (viii) credits; (ix) repayments; (x) adjustments; (xi)
recoveries; (xii) appropriations; (xiii) reversals; (xiv) waivers, if any; (xv) and the final figure claimed under the
present Section 13(2) notice. Until such reconciliation is furnished, the
alleged sum of Rs.1,18,45,771.87/- is
wholly disputed and is not admitted in any manner whatsoever.
16.
There
is another significant discrepancy which requires a specific explanation. The
Bank's claim in the pending O.A. comprises four separate loan accounts, whereas the present Section 13(2)
Demand Notice identifies only three
accounts. The O.A. had included (1) Car Loan Account No. 0822300036944; (2) Term/Housing Loan
Account No. 0700306734640; (3) Cash
Credit Account No. 0700250032294;
and (4) GECL Loan Account No. 0700306740359.
17.
The
present notice, however, claims (1) Account No. 0700250032294 – Rs.84,60,063/-; (2) Account No. 0700306734640 – Rs.27,14,628.87/-; and
(3) Account No. 0700306740359 –
Rs.6,71,080/-. The Car Loan Account does not appear in the present demand.
18.
This
creates a fundamental question as to whether the alleged Car Loan liability (i)
has been discharged; (ii) has been adjusted; (iii) has been waived; (iv) has
been closed; (v) has been withdrawn from the Bank's claim; (vi) has been
amalgamated with another account; or continues to remain payable in some other
form.
19.
The
Bank is therefore called upon to furnish a specific written clarification concerning the status of Account
No.0822300036944, particularly because the said account formed part of
the Bank's recovery claim in the pending O.A.
20.
My
clients emphatically submit that the Bank cannot seek to recover a consolidated
sum without furnishing sufficient particulars enabling the borrowers to
ascertain the precise liability arising from each account.
21.
The
three accounts mentioned in the present notice are separate banking facilities,
and each must have its own (a) sanction; (b) disbursement; (c) contractual
terms; (d) rate of interest; (e) repayment schedule; (f) debit entries; (g) credit
entries; (h) NPA date; (i) interest calculation; and (j) closing balance.
Accordingly, the Bank is called upon to provide a separate statement for each
account from inception up to 31.05.2026.
The Bank must also disclose the exact amount of principal and the exact amount of interest included in the alleged outstanding balance of each
account. The Bank must further disclose all payments received from my clients
and explain how each payment was appropriated. This is particularly necessary
because the Defendants have already disputed the Bank's account statements and
have relied upon documents relating to payments and transactions in the pending
O.A.
22.
The
Bank may contend that the pendency of the O.A. does not prevent the Bank from
exercising its statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act. My clients, however,
respectfully submit that this does not answer the present objection. The
question is not merely whether two statutory remedies can coexist. The question
is what is the actual debt legally due
and recoverable, and whether the Bank has properly and transparently
established the basis of the fresh statutory demand. The pending O.A. remains
an adjudicatory proceeding in which the Defendants have specifically disputed
the Bank's claim. The alleged amount in the O.A. has not been finally
adjudicated in favour of the Bank. Consequently, the Bank cannot treat the
amount pleaded in the O.A. as though it were an admitted, crystallised and finally adjudicated liability and
thereafter simply add further amounts to arrive at a fresh statutory demand. The
Bank must establish the present demand independently and transparently.
23.
My
clients reiterate that the correctness of the Bank's statements of account has
already been placed in issue in the pending O.A. The Bank's assertion that the
statements of account constitute conclusive proof of the alleged outstanding is
specifically denied.
24.
That
the contents of Schedule
‘A’, whereby the Bank has alleged an aggregate outstanding
liability of Rs.1,18,45,771.87/-
as on 31.05.2026, are specifically
denied and disputed in their entirety, save and except the
descriptions of the account numbers and nature of facilities, which are matters
appearing from the Bank's own records. The alleged figures of Rs.84,60,063/- in CCOTH Account
No.0700250032294, Rs.27,14,628.87/- in TLPHL Account No.0700306734640 and
Rs.6,71,080/- in DLCOV Account No.0700306740359, totalling
Rs.1,18,45,771.87/-, have not been established by any proper, transparent and
account-wise reconciliation and are therefore not admitted by my clients. The
Bank is put to strict proof of the principal outstanding, interest, penal
interest, charges, appropriations, credits, repayments and every other
component included in the said figures. The issue assumes particular
significance in view of the pending
O.A. No.15 of 2024 before the Learned DRT, Siliguri, wherein
the Bank had claimed a materially different aggregate amount and had relied
upon separate loan accounts. The Bank is therefore required to furnish a
complete reconciliation demonstrating how the present figure of
Rs.1,18,45,771.87/- has been arrived at and how the same corresponds with,
differs from, or supersedes the amount claimed in the pending O.A.
25.
That,
without prejudice to the aforesaid general objection, the Addressees
specifically require the Bank to furnish a separate and complete statement of account in
respect of each of the three facilities mentioned in Schedule ‘A’,
namely CCOTH
Account No.0700250032294, TLPHL Account No.0700306734640 and DLCOV Account
No.0700306740359, from the respective dates of
inception/disbursement up to 31.05.2026,
showing separately the sanctioned amount, amount actually disbursed, principal
outstanding, every debit and credit entry, repayments received, interest rate
applied from time to time, penal/additional interest, charges and expenses,
capitalization of interest, adjustments and the manner in which each payment
has been appropriated. The Bank must further clarify the basis upon which the
respective amounts of Rs.84,60,063/-,
Rs.27,14,628.87/- and Rs.6,71,080/- have been calculated and
must furnish the supporting ledger/account statements and certified computation
sheets. In the absence of such account-wise particulars and reconciliation, the
consolidated figure of Rs.1,18,45,771.87/-
cannot be treated as an admitted or crystallised liability, and
my clients expressly reserve all their rights and objections in relation to the
actual liability, quantum, interest, validity of the accounts and all other
issues pending adjudication before the Learned DRT.
26.
My
clients have raised questions concerning the actual transactions, payments,
credits, interest calculations and other entries appearing in the Bank's
records. These issues remain to be adjudicated by the Learned DRT. Accordingly,
the Bank is called upon to furnish certified
and complete statements of account, together with the relevant ledger
extracts and computation sheets, so that my clients can meaningfully examine
the present demand.
27.
The
Bank has relied upon the alleged classification of the accounts as NPA. My
clients do not admit the correctness of the NPA classification merely because
the same has been stated in the Demand Notice. The Bank is called upon to
furnish the complete material on the basis of which each account was classified
as NPA, including (a) date of classification; (b) overdue position; (c) account
conduct; (d) relevant entries; (e) regulatory basis; (f) internal
classification record; and (g) calculation showing the manner in which the NPA
date was arrived at. The Bank is further required to explain the effect of
subsequent payments, credits and transactions, if any, upon the alleged
outstanding liability.
28.
The
Defendants have already raised issues concerning the COVID-19 period and the
applicable RBI regulatory measures in the pending O.A. The Bank is therefore
required to disclose the manner in which the concerned accounts were treated
during the relevant period. The Bank must specifically disclose whether any(a) moratorium;
(b) restructuring; (c) interest relief; (d) interest-on-interest adjustment; (e)
penal interest waiver; (f) regulatory concession; or (g) other COVID-related
measure, was applicable to any of the concerned accounts and, if so, how the
same was reflected in the accounts. Any amount calculated without giving effect
to applicable regulatory directions is specifically disputed and shall not be
treated as admitted.
29.
The
Bank has relied upon the alleged equitable mortgage/security created in respect
of the immovable property described in the Demand Notice. My clients state that
the existence of security, even assuming without admitting the same, cannot by
itself establish the correctness of the alleged debt of Rs.1,18,45,771.87/-. The Bank must establish the precise legal
nexus between (i) the secured property; (ii) the mortgage; (iii) the respective
loan facilities; (iv) the amount originally secured; (v) subsequent
enhancement, if any; and (vi) the amount presently claimed. The Bank is
accordingly called upon to furnish the complete security documents, mortgage
documents, valuation documents and all documents relied upon for enforcement.
30.
My
clients further call upon the Bank to clarify the date appearing on the present
Demand Notice. The notice bears a reference pertaining to the financial year
2026-27, while the date and the computation of outstanding require precise
clarification. Since the date of a Section 13(2) Demand Notice has direct
statutory significance, the Bank must furnish an authenticated copy of the
actual notice as issued and served, clearly establishing (a) date of issuance; (b)
date of dispatch; (c) date of service; (d) amount outstanding on the date of
demand; and (e) statutory period granted for payment.
31.
That
the description of the alleged secured asset appearing under “PART–II – Equitable Mortgage
of Immovable Properties” is hereby specifically disputed and not
admitted, except to the limited extent that the Bank has
described the property as standing in the name of Hasna Bewa, W/o Late Janaruddin
Sekh, and has referred to Registered Deed No. I-2179 dated 14.03.2000.
The mere description of an immovable property in a statutory notice does not,
by itself, establish the existence, validity, subsistence, extent or
enforceability of any equitable mortgage in favour of the Bank, nor does it
establish that the property presently secures each and every amount alleged in
the Schedule ‘A’ of the notice.
32.
That
the Bank has described the alleged secured property as 3.50 Decimal residential land
and building situated at Mouza Janmahammadpur, J.L. No.112, L.R. Khatian
No.2417, L.R. Plot No.2503, registered at ADSR Sadar Berhampore, Murshidabad,
under Registered Deed No.I-2179 dated 14.03.2000, allegedly
standing in the name of Hasna Bewa. The Addressees call upon the Bank to
establish, by production of the original and/or certified title documents and
all relevant mortgage records, that the said property was in fact validly
offered and accepted as security for the specific loan facilities presently
sought to be enforced and that the alleged mortgage legally extends to the
entire outstanding amount of Rs.1,18,45,771.87/-
now demanded.
33.
That
the Bank is further required to disclose the precise date, place and manner of
creation of the alleged equitable mortgage, including the date
on which the original title deed was allegedly deposited with the Bank, the
branch/office where the same was deposited, the person by whom it was
deposited, the authority under which it was accepted, and the contemporaneous
memorandum, declaration, register, acknowledgment or other document relied upon
by the Bank to establish the alleged mortgage. The Addressees specifically call
upon the Bank to furnish the complete chain of documents relating to creation,
modification, enhancement, continuation and subsistence of the alleged
equitable mortgage.
34.
That
the Bank must further establish the specific
nexus between the alleged equitable mortgage and each of the three accounts
mentioned in Schedule ‘A’, namely CCOTH Account No.0700250032294,
TLPHL Account No.0700306734640 and DLCOV Account No.0700306740359.
It is not sufficient merely to state that the property constitutes an equitable
mortgage. The Bank is required to demonstrate from the sanction documents,
mortgage documents and relevant banking records whether the said property was
intended to secure each of the aforesaid facilities separately or collectively,
the amount originally secured, and whether any subsequent enhancement, renewal,
restructuring or additional facility was legally covered by the alleged
security.
35.
That
the Addressees further call upon the Bank to clarify the relationship between
the original
amount secured under the alleged mortgage and the present alleged liability of
Rs.1,18,45,771.87/-. The property is stated to have been
covered by Registered Deed No.I-2179 dated 14.03.2000, whereas the present
demand comprises liabilities under different banking facilities. The Bank must
therefore specifically disclose the sanction letters, loan agreements, security
documents, mortgage declarations and subsequent documents, if any, by which the
Bank claims that the alleged security continued to secure the present
outstanding liabilities.
36.
That
the identity,
title and extent of the secured property must also be established with
certainty. The Bank has described the property as measuring 3.50 Decimal,
being L.R. Plot No.2503 under L.R. Khatian No.2417, Mouza Janmahammadpur, J.L.
No.112. The Addressees call upon the Bank to furnish the relevant LR Record-of-Rights, mutation
particulars, title search report, encumbrance/search report, approved valuation
report and present valuation of the land and building, together
with the complete boundary description. The boundaries stated in the notice,
namely East –
Building of Marjina Bibi; North – Road; West – House of Bapi Sk; South – House
of Rosimuddin Mondal, must also be reconciled with the title
and revenue records relied upon by the Bank.
37.
That
the Bank is further required to establish that the property described in
Part–II is legally
capable of being enforced under the SARFAESI Act in respect of the particular
debt presently demanded and that there exists no legal
impediment, encumbrance, prior charge, competing interest or other circumstance
affecting the Bank's alleged security interest. The Addressees do not admit the
Bank's assertion that the mere production or reference to Deed No.I-2179 dated
14.03.2000 automatically confers upon the Bank an enforceable security interest
over the property for the entire amount presently claimed.
38.
That
the aforesaid objection is particularly material in view of the pending O.A. No.15 of 2024
before the Learned DRT, Siliguri, wherein the Bank has already
claimed recovery on the basis of specified loan accounts and has relied upon
its alleged security documents. The liability, quantum and account-wise
outstanding in the said O.A. remain disputed and pending adjudication.
Therefore, until the Bank establishes the precise amount legally due in each
account and the precise extent of the security securing such liability, the
Bank cannot simply assume that the entire amount presently stated in Schedule
‘A’ is secured by the property described in Part–II.
39.
That
the Addressees further call upon the Bank to clarify whether the alleged
equitable mortgage was ever registered,
recorded or otherwise disclosed in the applicable statutory/revenue records,
and, if so, to furnish copies of all such records. The Bank is also required to
disclose whether any prior or subsequent mortgage, charge, encumbrance,
release, modification or satisfaction concerning the said property exists in
its records.
40.
That
the Addressees specifically reserve their right to challenge the validity, extent,
enforceability and priority of the alleged equitable mortgage,
including the authority of the person creating the alleged security, the
circumstances in which the title deed was allegedly deposited, the documents
accompanying such deposit, the consideration for which the security was
allegedly created, and the applicability of the alleged mortgage to the
individual facilities now sought to be recovered.
41.
That
in the circumstances stated above, the Bank is called upon to furnish complete
particulars and documents establishing the alleged equitable mortgage before
proceeding against the property under Section 13(4) or any other provision of
the SARFAESI Act. The Addressees further call upon the Bank to provide a current and authenticated
valuation of the property, together with the basis of
valuation, so that the alleged secured asset and the alleged outstanding
liability can be properly assessed.
42.
That,
accordingly, the description of the property contained in Part–II of the Demand Notice is
hereby objected to and disputed to the extent of the Bank's assertion of an
enforceable mortgage securing the entire amount presently demanded.
Nothing contained herein shall be construed as an admission of the existence,
validity, extent or enforceability of the alleged equitable mortgage. The Bank
is put to strict
proof of its title/security documents, creation and subsistence of the
mortgage, the debt secured thereby, the extent of the security and its present
enforceability, and the Addressees reserve all their rights and
remedies in the pending O.A. No.15 of 2024 and in any appropriate proceedings
before the competent forum.
43.
The
most important question requiring an answer from the Bank is this: Once the Bank has expressly withdrawn the
earlier Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 02.07.2021 in compliance with the
Judgment dated 29.07.2024, what is the legal basis for treating that withdrawn
notice as continuing to have evidentiary or operative significance in O.A.
No.15 of 2024? My clients are not inviting the Authorised Officer to
adjudicate the pending O.A. The present objection is confined to requiring the
Bank to maintain consistency in its own
statutory and judicial pleadings and to explain the foundation of the
fresh demand. If the Bank asserts that the O.A. remains independently
maintainable notwithstanding withdrawal of the earlier Section 13(2) notice,
then the Bank must nevertheless clarify which
particular debt, for which particular period and under which particular
account, is presently being enforced under the new Section 13(2) notice.
44.
For
abundant caution, it is expressly stated that my clients do not admit the alleged debt or any part
thereof. Any reference to the figures contained in the Bank's notice or
O.A. herein is made solely for the purpose of identifying and demonstrating the
discrepancies and contradictions in the Bank's own claims. My clients reserve
their right to challenge every component of the alleged liability, including:
(i) principal; (ii) interest; (iii) penal interest; (iv) charges; (v) expenses;
(vi) capitalization; (vii) NPA classification; (viii) appropriation; (ix) security;
(x) guarantee; (xi) personal liability; (xii) limitation; (xiii) service of
notices; and (xiv) enforceability of the
alleged debt.
45.
For
effective consideration of this representation under Section 13(3A), the Bank
is called upon to furnish the following;
(a)
complete statements of account of all concerned loan accounts from inception;
(b)
complete account-wise computation up to 31.05.2026;
(c)
details of every payment and credit received;
(d)
details of appropriation of every payment;
(e)
rate of interest applicable from time to time;
(f)
computation of penal/additional interest;
(g)
details of all charges and expenses;
(h)
NPA classification records;
(i)
copies of all sanction letters and loan agreements;
(j)
copies of all security and guarantee documents;
(k)
copy of the earlier Section 13(2) notice dated 02.07.2021;
(l)
copy of the alleged proof of service thereof;
(m)
copy of the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2024;
(n)
document evidencing withdrawal of the earlier demand;
(o)
complete reconciliation between the amount claimed in O.A. No.15 of 2024 and
the present amount demanded;
(p)
explanation regarding the omission of the Car Loan Account from the present
demand;
(q)
COVID-period account treatment and regulatory adjustments;
(r)
valuation report and details of the alleged secured property; and
(s)
authority/authorization under which the present Demand Notice has been issued.
46.
My
clients specifically invoke their statutory right under Section 13(3A) to make representations and objections to the
Demand Notice. The present representation is not a mere denial. It raises
specific, substantive and documentary issues concerning: (1) the previous
Demand Notice; (2) the DRT Judgment; (3) the Bank's own withdrawal; (4) the
pending O.A.; (5) the amount claimed therein; (6) the amount presently
demanded; (7) the different number of accounts; (8) the account-wise
computation; (9) payments and credits; (10) interest; (11) NPA classification;
and (12) security. The Bank is therefore requested to consider each objection independently and objectively and to
communicate a reasoned decision in accordance with law. A mechanical rejection
of the representation without dealing with the specific issues raised herein
would fail to address the substance of the statutory representation.
47.
In
the totality of the facts and circumstances, the present Demand Notice suffers
from serious factual and legal uncertainties which require clarification before
any further coercive measure is undertaken. The Bank cannot proceed merely upon
a consolidated figure when: (1) an earlier Section 13(2) Demand Notice was
issued; (2) SARFAESI proceedings were
thereafter challenged before the DRT; (3) the DRT passed its Judgment dated
29.07.2024; (4) the Bank itself states that it has withdrawn the earlier
Section 13(2) Demand Notice; (5) the Bank has an O.A. pending before the DRT
claiming a substantially different amount; (6) the earlier O.A. contained four
accounts; (7) the present notice contains only three accounts; and (8) the
precise account-wise liability remains disputed and unadjudicated. My clients
therefore submit that the Bank must first reconcile its own pleadings, its own accounts and its own statutory
notices, and only thereafter proceed strictly in accordance with law.
In
the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I, on behalf of my clients, hereby call
upon the Authorised Officer of Punjab National Bank to (a) 1. Accept and take on record this
Reply-cum-Objection under Section 13(3A); (b) Withdraw the present Demand
Notice, insofar as it is founded upon or seeks to rely upon the earlier Section
13(2) Demand Notice dated 02.07.2021 which the Bank itself has stated to have
been withdrawn; (c) Alternatively, treat the present notice strictly as a fresh statutory demand and furnish a
complete and independently reconciled computation; (d) Explain the substantial
difference between the Rs.95,63,554.87/-
claimed in O.A. No.15 of 2024 and the present demand of Rs.1,18,45,771.87/-; (e) Explain the
omission of the Car Loan Account from the present Demand Notice; (f) Furnish
complete account-wise statements and supporting documents; (g) Give full credit
for all payments and adjustments; (h) Recalculate the interest, penal interest
and charges in accordance with law and the applicable contractual and
regulatory provisions; (i) Clarify the NPA classification and the treatment of
the accounts during the COVID-19 period; (j) Furnish complete particulars
concerning the mortgage/security relied upon by the Bank; (k) Refrain from
taking any coercive measure under Section 13(4) until the objections herein are
duly considered and disposed of in accordance with Section 13(3A); (l) Communicate
a reasoned and speaking decision
upon each of the objections raised herein; and (m) Clarify the legal and
factual basis upon which the Bank proposes to proceed with the present
statutory demand while its earlier demand has been withdrawn and its recovery
claim remains pending adjudication before the Learned DRT in O.A. No.15 of
2024.
This
Reply-cum-Objection is submitted without
prejudice to the rights and contentions of my clients in O.A. No.15 of 2024, S.A. proceedings,
any proceedings arising from the Judgment dated 29.07.2024, and any future
proceedings under the SARFAESI Act or otherwise. Nothing contained herein shall
be construed as: (a) an acknowledgment of debt; (b) an admission of the Bank's
account statements; (c) an admission of the amount claimed; (d) an admission of
liability of any individual Addressee; (e) an admission of validity of the
mortgage/security; (f) a waiver of limitation; (g) a waiver of any defence
already taken in the pending O.A.; or (h) an acceptance of the Bank's
computation. The Bank is put to strict
proof of each and every component of the alleged liability.
My
clients reserve their right to take appropriate proceedings before the
competent forum against any action taken contrary to law, including any measure
purportedly taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.
Yours faithfully,
Pritilata Sardar
Advocate
High Court Calcutta
No comments:
Post a Comment