SARFAESI demand notice must disclose debt details and secured assets; tribunal may test its validity in section 17 review.

A SARFAESI demand notice must strictly comply with section 13(3) by specifying the amount payable and the secured assets intended for enforcement; a bare lump-sum demand is insufficient and renders the notice invalid. The notice must enable the borrower to understand the claim and raise an effective objection under section 13(3A). In proceedings under section 17, the Debts Recovery Tribunal may examine the validity of the section 13(2) notice and whether the statutory preconditions under sections 13(2), 13(3) and 13(3A) were satisfied, because that inquiry goes to the legality of measures taken under section 13(4).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a notice issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act must give details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced; and (ii) whether, in proceedings under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal can test the validity of the notice under section 13(2) and the borrower's objection under section 13(3A).

Issue (i): Whether a notice issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act must give details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced.

Analysis: The statutory text of section 13(3) requires the notice under section 13(2) to contain the details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced. The requirement is not satisfied by merely stating a lump sum outstanding figure. The borrower must be enabled to understand the components of the claim and to raise an effective objection under section 13(3A). Where the notice does not disclose the requisite particulars, it fails to comply with the mandatory requirement of the Act.

Conclusion: The notice was held to be defective for want of the required details and was invalid in law.

Issue (ii): Whether, in proceedings under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal can test the validity of the notice under section 13(2) and the borrower's objection under section 13(3A).

Analysis: Section 17 empowers the Tribunal to examine whether the measures taken by the secured creditor under section 13(4) are in accordance with the Act. That inquiry necessarily includes whether the foundational notice under section 13(2) was valid and whether the preconditions under sections 13(2), 13(3) and 13(3A) were satisfied. If the notice is invalid, the consequential measures under section 13(4) cannot survive. The Tribunal, therefore, is not confined to a narrow post-possession review and may examine the legality of the notice where it forms the basis of the challenged measures.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was held competent to examine the validity of the notice under section 13(2), and the challenge to the Tribunal's jurisdiction was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The secured creditor's challenge failed because the demand notice did not comply with the statutory mandate and the consequent enforcement steps were unsustainable; the concurrent orders in favour of the borrowers were affirmed and exemplary costs were imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act must strictly comply with section 13(3) by disclosing the amount payable and the secured assets to be enforced, and the validity of that foundational notice may be examined by the Tribunal under section 17 while reviewing the legality of measures taken under section 13(4).

---