Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Incomplete notice providing only land details but omitting building (if part of secured assets) violates mandatory specificity under Section 13(2), making it invalid and proceedings challengeable under Section 17 before DRT; banks estopped from proceeding or must issue fresh notice with full details ["Punjab National Bank Chief Manager Samver Road Branch Shri Rajesh K Bajaj VS Additional District Magistrate Collector Dhar - Madhya Pradesh"] ["International Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, Rept. By Its Senior Vice President, Mr. Sidhharth Shah VS Jhansirani Vinodkumar, W/o. Late Vinodkumar - Karnataka"] ["Punjab National Bank VS Mithilanchal Industries Pvt. Ltd. - 2020 0 Supreme(Guj) 935"] ["PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs M/S TELSTAR INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. - Gujarat"].
In the high-stakes world of banking recovery under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, the validity of a Section 13(2) notice can make or break enforcement proceedings. Borrowers often challenge these notices for lack of specificity, raising a key question: SARFAESI 13(2) notice to be specific. What if only land details is provided but building details are not provided?
This blog post dives deep into the legal nuances, drawing from judicial precedents and statutory requirements. While courts generally prioritize substance over form, vagueness can still doom a notice. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, a secured creditor demands repayment from a defaulting borrower. Crucially, Section 13(3) mandates that the notice specify details of the amount payable and crucially, the secured assets intended to be enforced. The goal? Enable clear identification to avoid disputes.
In practice, notices for immovable properties focus on land identifiers like plot numbers, survey numbers (S.No.), CTS numbers, hissa numbers, and location. Buildings or superstructures are typically deemed included if situated on the land. Courts have held that precise land details suffice, even without explicit building mentions, provided they allow unambiguous identification.
A pivotal Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) ruling exemplifies this. In a case scrutinizing a 13(2) notice describing Plot No. 493 B, Hissa No. 4, Sub Plot No. 4 admeasuring about 1060 sq. mtrs. out of CTS No. 1118, Lakaki Road, Bhamburda (Shivaji Nagar), Tal Haveli, Distt. Pune, the tribunal compared it against the sale deed and other documents. Despite area discrepancies (sq. mtrs. vs. sq. ft.) and minor variations (e.g., Hissa No. 5 in possession notice), it ruled: Bare look at the description would show that sometimes the areas is mentioned in sq. ft and sometimes in sq. mtrs. but that is not likely to mislead anybody as Plot number, Hissa number, Sub-plot number and location is specifically mentioned. Giving description by boundaries was simply a surplusage which would not vitiate the sale or Sale Notice.Navalakha Agencies VS Indian Bank - Bombay (2012)
No separate building details were demanded or required—the land identifiers were deemed adequate to cover superstructures. Minor errors didn't go to the root of the matter to invalidate the entire action.
Similarly, another DRT decision affirmed a 13(2) notice's legality, stating: Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the Notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act.MS DIAMOND HOSPITAL PVT LTD AND ORS vs LIC HOUSING FINANCE Ltd - 2025 Supreme(Online)(DRAT) 306 This reinforces that precise identifiers trump pedantic omissions.
Subsequent notices under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, provide a benchmark. The model possession notice format reads: All that part and parcel of the property consisting of Flat No. /Plot No. _ In Survey No. /City or Town Survey No. /Khasara no. _ Within the registration Sub- district _ and District . Bounded; On the North by...Harshad Govardhan Sondagar VS International Assets Reconstruction - 2014 7 Supreme 601
Actual notices echo this: land and structure in Door No.11 in S.No.124... Land totally measuring an extent of 441.50 sq. Mtrs... with the very old superstructure... E. D. Charles VS Chief Manager, Authorized Officer - 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 3369 or Plot No. 493B, Hissa No. 5, Sub Plot No. 4 admeasuring about 1060 sq. ft. out of CTS No. 1118... bounded as follows...Navalakha Agencies VS Indian Bank - Bombay (2012). Boundaries and plot details dominate, implying buildings are subsumed under land descriptions. Omission of granular building specifics didn't invalidate these. Punjab National Bank VS Mithilanchal Industries Pvt. Ltd. - 2020 0 Supreme(Guj) 935S. Valarmathi VS District Collector-cum-District Magistrate - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 718
While land details often suffice, pitfalls exist:
Distinct Assets: If the building is separately hypothecated (e.g., as a unique secured asset), omitting it may mislead, akin to vague movables descriptions: lack of movable details in sale notices was noted criticallySoma Papers and Industries VS Bank of India - Dishonour Of Cheque (2014).
Analogy from Broader Contexts: Non-SARFAESI cases warn against cryptic notices, like mere city/ward without locality/khasra, which invalidate proceedings M. P. Housing Board: State Of M. P. VS Mohd. Shafi - 1992 0 Supreme(SC) 158. In SARFAESI auctions, failure to disclose material defects (e.g., access issues) constitutes misrepresentation under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, entitling remedies like refunds Divyam Agarwal vs Indian Bank, represented through its Branch Manager, Padampur, Odisha - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 369. Similarly, banks must deliver full property post-auction, rejecting 'as is where is' shields for encroachments or incomplete possession K.R. Ushasree W/o B. Mohanchandran Nair vs Indian Bank, Rep. by Branch Manager, Kollam Branch - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2745.
Natural Justice and Specificity: Principles require sufficient details for defense. General allegations without specifics (e.g., infrastructure lacks) violate fairness Janta Kalyan Samiti Administrative, Rewari, Haryana VS Union Of India - 2020 Supreme(P&H) 1179. Though not SARFAESI-specific, this underscores notices mustn't be misleading.
Even post-13(2) notice, unchallenged actions proceed smoothly, as no objections were raised in one instance despite subsequent steps Parth Concast Ltd. Through Mr. Balraj Garg VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 443.
If any of the above details have already been provided, then the present directions would be restricted to the details which are not provided.Kamdhenu Limited VS Raghunath Virdharam Bishnoi - 2022 Supreme(Del) 1502—a reminder for comprehensive disclosures.
Generally, a SARFAESI 13(2) notice with precise land details (plot no., hissa, CTS, location) is upheld even sans explicit building descriptions, as superstructures are presumed included. Courts tolerate minor variances if identification is clear, prioritizing recovery efficiency Navalakha Agencies VS Indian Bank - Bombay (2012). However, vagueness or material non-disclosures may invite Section 17 scrutiny, drawing from auction and notice specificity principles Divyam Agarwal vs Indian Bank, represented through its Branch Manager, Padampur, Odisha - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 369K.R. Ushasree W/o B. Mohanchandran Nair vs Indian Bank, Rep. by Branch Manager, Kollam Branch - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2745.
Key Takeaways:- Precision Matters: Land identifiers are core; buildings often covered implicitly.- Substance Over Form: Discrepancies like area units aren't fatal.- Act Promptly: Borrowers, raise objections within 45 days under Section 13(3A).- Best Practice: Banks, err on detailed sides.
Stay informed on evolving DRT/DRAT jurisprudence. For tailored guidance, reach out to legal experts.
#SARFAESI #BankingLaw #LegalNotice
The petitioner bank issued a demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, dated 22.09.2017 to all the respondents (No.2 and 3) and the same was served upon them on 27.9.2017. 5. ... At the time of issuance of the said demand notice under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 22.9.2017 as well as while publication of notice of taking symbolic possession in the English newspaper on 30.1.2018, the Khasra numbe....
The submission could not be brushed aside lightly that notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act stood invalid as it did not comply with the requirements of mentioning the specific details. ... Further, it could be submitted that the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act did not contain the requisite details needed to be mandatorily mentioned therein....
Even after notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 22.07.2014, no objections were raised. 21. ... Section 13(4) and 13(6) of the SARFAESI Act read as follows: “13. Enforcement of security interest. ... the not suitable building is constructed for boundary wall/production work, the application for transfer of vacant plots, sheds, buildings will not be done under any situation. ....
It was also explicitly mentioned that the Authorized Officer had taken possession under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. ... It is also clarified that no sketch map was provided with the sale notice or formed part of the auction documents. The alleged sketch map dated 20.10.2023 was never part of the official sale documents. ... Due to the non-existence of road access, the rice mill and the land remain unusable. ... (ii) The Petitioner, being interested in the said property, approa....
of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. ... The finding of the Tribunal was that the notice was not in accordance with the statutory provision provided in Section 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act as it did not contain the details of the amount due and also the correct details of the secured assets. ... Parikh that under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the De....
The Tribunal held that there was non compliance of Section 13(2) inasmuch as, details of the amounts due were not provided. The Tribunal directed the bank to restore the possession with a liberty that the bank can proceed afresh under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. ... On 29.12.2014, a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued by the petitioner bank. Consequential actions under the SA....
The Tribunal held that there was non compliance of Section 13(2) inasmuch as, details of the amounts due were not provided. The Tribunal directed the bank to restore the possession with a liberty that the bank can proceed afresh under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. ... On 29.12.2014, a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued by the petitioner bank. Consequential actions under the SA....
It was submitted that the first demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, dated 9th October, 2012 was in respect of mortgaged immovable properties (land and Building) of the respondent company in pursuance of which auction was initiated while the second demand notice under Section 13(2) ... The respondent company failed to liquidate the outstanding dues of the appellant Bank and thereafter the appellant Bank issued poss....
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act') in respect of 3 Acres 20 cents of land and building situated therein comprised in old Survey Nos.9658, 9859, 9608 and 9614 of Kollam East Village (Re.Survey ... The argument of the financial institution that as the assets had been offered for sale on an 'as is where is or whatever there is' basis, it would not be liable for the loss of valuable components thereafter, was rejected on the grou....
Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the Notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act. 13. ... Notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 08.10.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) followed by Notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act dated 19.12.2020 were issued by the Secured Creditor. ... Credit Facilities were provided under the Apna Hospital Scheme. Le....
If any of the above details have already been provided, then the present directions would be restricted to the details which are not provided.
In the absence of details regarding lack of infrastructure, respondent No.2 could not have withdrawn accreditation on this ground. Principles of natural justice require that sufficient details must be furnished to the person against whom an order to his interest detrimental is sought to be passed so that he can set up an adequate defence. 7. Regarding lack of infrastructure, a perusal of the show cause notice shows that general allegations regarding lack of infrastructure have been made. In its reply, the petitioner demanded specific details but no such details were provided.#HL_EN....
The second Schedule provides as under:- S. No. Elements of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Entitlements Entitlement/provision Whether provided or not (if provided, details to be given) 1. Provision of housing units in case of displacement (1) If a house is lost in rural areas, a constructed house shall be provided as per the Indira Awas Yojana specifications. If a house is lost in urban areas, a constructed house shall be provided, which will be not less than 50 sq mts in plinth area.
This reassessment is clearly not on the basis of new (or “tangible”) information or facts that which the Revenue came by. The reasons must indicate specifically what such objective and new material facts are, on the basis of which a reopening is initiated under Section 148. 9. In this case, the reasons provided under Section 148 are that in “absence of the source of the addition with documentary evidence on records, the same is required to be brought on tax net as per provisions of section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 as the assessee had offered no explanation about the nature and source o....
In the tender notice details of the land parcels, which were made to be provided, were not specifically disclosed. Another important aspect of the matter, which cannot be lost sight of, is that the global tender, inviting offers was floated on 01st November, 2007. What is further important to note is that at the time the bids were invited, the contract was mentioned to be for a period of 35 years only, including the rights over the land parcels. However, subsequently after short listing of the tenders the right over the land parcels has been granted for a period of 90 years....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
