N. RAVIKUMAR Vs. INDUSIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice issued under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as, ''the SARFAESI Act'') is challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that he is neither a borrower nor a guarantor and that he is a third party, whose property documents have been pledged, in collusion with bank officials.

(2.) Inviting the attention of this Court to the definitions of the word ''borrower'' in Section 2(f) of the Act and ''Secured Creditor'' under Section 2(z) of the SARFAESI Act, Mr. V. Raghavachari, the learned Counsel represented the Counsel on record for the petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner, who had not availed any financial assistance from any bank or financial institutions, would not fall under the definition of borrower, in so also, the respondent No.1, would not fall under the definition of ''secured creditor''.

(3.) Taking us through the bank statement, the General Power of Attorney dated 16.09.2014 stated to have been executed in favour of an individual, its subsequent cancellation, a criminal complaint lodged against several persons including the Manager of the IndusInd Bank, who has been arrayed as 5th accused, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the bank has chosen to exercise the powers under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the Writ Petitioner, who is aggrieved over the collusion and fraud committed by the bank with others, has every right to seek for indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Contitution of India and that, he need not wait till the bank proceeds with action under the provisions of the Act.