BANK SEND THE 13(2) LETTER AFTER 7 YRS

772 votes

You generally cannot bypass the mandatory pre-deposit requirement of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) by approaching the High Court just to buy time. but in this case if it is a secured business loan and there is an arbitration clause in the agreement you can file for stay in section 9 of arbitration and conciliation act, and appointment of arbitrator in section 11, that will give you relief for atleast 2-3 years, also in Drt you would be required to pay at least 20% of the loan amount to stop the bank auction of the property. You can also approach NCLT to stop bank, if you have any other loan in your name, also you can file a civil suit against the bank on the grounds of limitation that after seven years you cannot claim the interests while harassing the borrowee randomly after 7-8 years under section 5 of limitation act

Advocate Moksh Jain LawRato

967 votes

hi this is adv vibha narendra mishrikotkar from law rato app i will definitely give you answer for your query kindly give me a call or what's app from law rato app thank you for contacting me from law rato app thank you

Advocate Vibha Narendra Mishrikotkar LawRato

687 votes

Your father's position is substantially stronger than the bank's current posture suggests. The 7-year communication gap (2019–2026) following the Section 13(4) possession notice, coupled with the NPA itself turning 10 years old by November 2026, triggers multiple statutory defenses: under the RBI's Classification of Assets directive, the bank's recovery rights face significant time-bar exposure, and the multiple conflicting Section 13(2) notices (spanning 2016–2026) create procedural irregularities that warrant challenge under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Your immediate strategy should involve: **(1)** filing a DRT application under Section 34 to challenge the possession proceedings on procedural grounds and obtain a stay pending resolution; **(2)** invoking the 25% deposit waiver provisions if the DRT finds the bank's conduct dilatory or in breach of RBI Fair Practice Code guidelines; and **(3)** if the DRT deposit requirement is unjustifiable, seeking High Court intervention under Article 227 to suspend the deposit condition and extend negotiation timelines to November 2028—when the 12-year NPA limitation crystallizes and the bank's de facto recovery rights expire. This is not a straightforward possession matter; it is a layered recovery challenge requiring aggressive procedural pleading and familiarity with DRT jurisprudence on asset classification and RBI compliance. Engage an advocate experienced in SARFAESI dispute defense and DRT strategy to quantify the time-bar exposure and structure an OTS (One-Time Settlement) negotiation from a position of documented legal strength.

Advocate Bhumika Vijay Bajaj LawRato

945 votes

If the bank has initiated SARFAESI proceedings after such a long gap, the complete chronology and limitation position need to be examined carefully. The delay, validity of the 13(2)/13(4) notices, possession proceedings, interest calculation and the limitation issue can be raised before the DRT. If an adverse DRT order is passed, an appeal before DRAT may involve the statutory pre-deposit requirement, subject to the applicable law. A writ petition before the High Court may be considered only on appropriate grounds and is not automatically a substitute for the statutory remedy. Please share the 13(2), 13(4), possession notice, loan/statement of account and DRT papers for detailed examination; after reviewing them, I can advise on the available legal remedies and possible time sought.

Advocate Sanket Ganpat Khamkar LawRato