SAMPOORNA BATTU Vs. ICICI BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A significant question of considerable importance falls for consideration in this writ petition filed by a borrower against the possession notice purportedly issued pursuant to notice of demand dated 25.11.2009 issued by the authorised officer of the second respondent.

(2.) The brief fact of the matter is that the petitioner availed housing loan from the first respondent agreeing for deduction of loan instalments from her salary. She also mortgaged the immovable property to secure the loan. THE second respondent to whom the financial asset was transferred treated the loan as non performing asset and got issued notice of demand under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act), through their advocate. THE said notice was countersigned by the authorised officer of the second respondent. Be that as it is, as the petitioner failed to comply with the notice of demand, the authorised officer of the second respondent issued possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act informing that the secured asset has been taken possession and the general public were cautioned not to deal with the property.

(3.) Under Section 13(12) of the Act such a right to issue notice of demand is exercised by the secured creditor by one or more of his officers authorised for the purpose. The term "authorised officer" is not defined in the Act. But, Rule 2(a) of the Rules, defines "authorised officer". Rules 2(a) and (b) read as follows.