SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

KERALA HIGH COURT
A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J
Bobby Sebstian —Petitioner
versus
Authorised Officer, ICICI Bank —Respondent
WP (C) No. 2372 of 2013
Decided on 11.4.2014

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Praveen K Joy, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Lal K Joseph, Mr. A.A. Ziyad Rahman, Mr. V.S. Shiraj Bava and Mr. KKM, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
A notice to be valid and effective in law, ought to be issued by secured creditor or authorised officer.

Headnote:Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Section 13 (2) — Security Interest Rules, 2002 — Rule 2(a) & 2(b) — Demand Notice — Notice issued by Counsel representing the respondent bank — HELD — Only officer of bank specified by Board of Directors can issue notice of demand — Under Section 13(2) of the Act as contemplated under Rule 2(b) of the Rules, 2002. [Para 12]

       Result: Petition allowed

       

JUDGMENT

A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J. — The competency of Ex.Pl notice is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The 1st and 2nd petitioners are the borrowers in a loan transaction. They got a housing loan of 1,00,00,000 from the respondent bank mortgaging an apartment owned by them. The petitioners allege that they have remitted nearly 76,00,000 in repayment and; even after the aforesaid payment, the respondent bank was threatening that huge amounts are due from them. Though the petitioners disputed the amount, the respondent bank caused Ex.Pl lawyer’s notice to be issued on the petitioners under the SRFAESI Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. The petitioners allege that a lawyer is not competent to issue such a notice as he is not an authorized officer of the respondent bank. Thus, the petitioners have approached this Court.

3. Arguments have been heard.

4. While the learned Counsel for the petitioners would argue that the lawyer, who issued the notice on the petitioners, is not an authorized officer within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Security Interest Rules, 2002, the learned Counsel for the respondent bank would contend that Ex.Pl notice is legally competent.

5. Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 deals with the enforcement of security interest. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 reads as follows:

“(2) Where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any instalment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as Non Performing Asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section (4).”

5. Rule 2(b) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 defines “demand notice” as follows:

“(b) demand notice means the notice in writing issued by a secured creditor or authorised officer, as the case may be, to any borrower pursuant to sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act.”

Therefore, a notice to be valid and effective in law ought to be issued by a secured creditor or an authorised officer.

6. In the instant case, the notice was issued by the Counsel representing the respondent bank. Now, the question is, if such a notice is issued by the Counsel representing the bank (secured creditor), can it be repudiated; branding it as one issued in contravention of the letter and spirit of the provisions of the Act and Rules?

7. The learned Counsel for the respondent bank would submit that the notice issued by the Counsel representing the bank is a notice of demand, which constitutes an action, thereby providing for an opportunity to the borrower to make a representation to the secured creditor and; therefore, it is legally competent.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, per contra, would submit that as the statute and rules made thereunder specify a particular mode, the same has to be complied with, especially, because, it involves the taking away of the property belonging to the borrower. Section 13(2) of the Act makes it clear how the right of a secured creditor has to be enforced, which has to be by a notice. Rule 2(b) makes it clear that it has to be by the secured creditor or its authorised officer.

9. Section 2(zd) of the Act defines “secured creditor” as follows:

“(zd) ‘secured creditor” means any bank or financial institution or any consortium or group of banks or financial institutions and includes:

(i) debenture trustee appointed by any bank or financial institution; or

(ii) securitisation company or reconstruction company, whether acting as such or managing a trust set up by such securitisation company or reconstruction company for the securitisatio









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top