Dear Sir/Madam,
Based on the facts provided by you, it appears that you are claiming to be the sole and absolute owner of Flat No. 207, R1, Jaitala, Tulsi Vihar, Nagpur – 440036, and that the earlier loan secured against the property was fully liquidated, following which Bank of Baroda issued a No Due Certificate in the year 2017. You have further stated that you possess a Builder NOC and a title search report indicating that the property was free from encumbrances at the time of your acquisition.
Despite these documents, you state that Nagpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. has initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and has allegedly included your flat in the enforcement proceedings, with an ARC and officials having visited the premises on 12 August 2026 pursuant to an order obtained from the CJM. If your flat is genuinely not a secured asset in respect of the outstanding debt and the mortgage or charge relied upon by the bank does not legally subsist against your property, you have a substantial basis to challenge its inclusion in the SARFAESI proceedings.
The most urgent remedy would ordinarily be to approach the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Section 17 permits “any person”, including a person other than the borrower, who is aggrieved by measures taken under Section 13(4), to challenge such action before the DRT. The application generally has to be filed within 45 days from the relevant SARFAESI measure, and the Tribunal has the power to examine whether the action taken by the secured creditor is in accordance with the Act and Rules. The DRT can also grant appropriate relief, including declaring the impugned action invalid and granting consequential relief where warranted.
Since a CJM order under Section 14 appears to have already been obtained and officials have visited the premises, the matter requires immediate action. The Magistrate exercising powers under Section 14 generally assists the secured creditor in obtaining possession and does not adjudicate complicated title disputes between the bank and third parties. Therefore, objections regarding the wrongful inclusion of your flat as a secured asset should be urgently raised before the appropriate DRT through a properly constituted application under Section 17.
Your case should specifically be founded on the following grounds:
- The earlier loan against the property was fully discharged, as evidenced by the No Due Certificate issued by Bank of Baroda in 2017.
- Your property has allegedly been wrongly included as a secured asset, despite there being no subsisting charge or mortgage against it.
- You are claiming to be a bona fide third-party owner and not the borrower responsible for the alleged outstanding debt.
- The bank and/or ARC must establish the precise mortgage document, security interest and chain of title on the basis of which Flat No. 207 has been included in the recovery proceedings.
- Any enforcement action based upon an extinguished mortgage, an incorrect property description, defective records or a security interest that does not legally attach to your flat can be challenged.
- If the bank had knowledge of documents demonstrating discharge of the earlier loan and nevertheless proceeded against your property, those facts should be specifically brought before the Tribunal.
- Considering that you are a senior citizen aged 68 years and are facing an imminent threat of dispossession, an application for urgent interim protection and stay of coercive measures should be sought.
The immediate legal strategy should therefore be to obtain certified copies of the following documents without delay: the Section 13(2) notice, Section 13(4) possession notice, the Section 14 application filed before the CJM, the affidavit filed by the authorised officer, the CJM order, details of the alleged mortgage/security interest, CERSAI search records, title documents relied upon by the bank, and any assignment documents if the debt has been transferred to an ARC.
Thereafter, an urgent Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act should be considered before the competent DRT, seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that Flat No. 207 is wrongly included in the SARFAESI proceedings, a stay against taking physical possession, a restraint against auction or creation of third-party rights, and a direction to exclude/release the flat from the recovery proceedings.
It is important to act immediately because once possession is taken or the property is auctioned, the dispute can become procedurally more complicated. However, the fact that a Section 14 order has been passed does not by itself determine the ownership rights or conclusively establish that the bank is legally entitled to proceed against your particular flat. The statutory remedy before the DRT is specifically available to an aggrieved person challenging measures taken under the SARFAESI Act.
One important point requiring clarification is the statement that you made a representation to the Principal Nodal Officer on 06 January 2015, whereas the No Due Certificate referred to by you is stated to have been issued in 2017. This chronology should be carefully verified because the correct dates and sequence of events will be important in preparing the legal challenge.
In conclusion, based on the facts stated by you, the matter appears to require immediate intervention before the competent Debts Recovery Tribunal for protection of your possession and exclusion of Flat No. 207 from the SARFAESI proceedings. Your strongest case will depend upon establishing, through registered documents and bank records, that there is no valid and subsisting mortgage or security interest over your flat in favour of Nagpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. or any ARC claiming through it.
