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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more