Skip to main content

Lawyer's notice on loan repayment invalid: Kerala HC

Though they disputed the amount which was due to the bank, the bank's lawyer sent them a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the petition said. As per this section, a notice has to be sent to the debtor asking them to repay the outstanding loan within 60 days. If the debtor fails to pay up, the bank can take possession of the mortgaged property.

The petitioners' counsel Praveen K Joy argued at the high court that a lawyer is not competent to issue such a notice as he is not an authorized officer of the bank, as specified in Security Interest Rules of 2002. As per the rules, an authorized officer is an officer who is not less than a chief manager of a public sector bank.

Opposing this, the bank's counsel Lal K Joseph contended that the notice sent to the petitioners is legally competent.

Setting aside the notice sent by the lawyer, the court held, "On a plain reading of Rule 2(a) and 2(b), it can be seen that only an officer of the bank, as specified by the board of directors, can issue a notice of demand under Section 13(2) of the Act as contemplated under Rule 2(b) of the Security Interest Rules, 2002."

Though they disputed the amount which was due to the bank, the bank's lawyer sent them a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the petition said. As per this section, a notice has to be sent to the debtor asking them to repay the outstanding loan within 60 days. If the debtor fails to pay up, the bank can take possession of the mortgaged property.

The petitioners' counsel Praveen K Joy argued at the high court that a lawyer is not competent to issue such a notice as he is not an authorized officer of the bank, as specified in Security Interest Rules of 2002. As per the rules, an authorized officer is an officer who is not less than a chief manager of a public sector bank.

Opposing this, the bank's counsel Lal K Joseph contended that the notice sent to the petitioners is legally competent.

Setting aside the notice sent by the lawyer, the court held, "On a plain reading of Rule 2(a) and 2(b), it can be seen that only an officer of the bank, as specified by the board of directors, can issue a notice of demand under Section 13(2) of the Act as contemplated under Rule 2(b) of the Security Interest Rules, 2002."

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Kochi/Lawyers-notice-on-loan-repayment-invalid-HC/articleshow/36264333.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more