Demand notice to be issued by secured creditor/officer: KerHC

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a demand notice to be valid and effective in law should be issued by a secured creditor or its authorized officer and not by their lawyer.

The petitioners (debtors) defaulted on a home loan and hence were served with a demand notice by the creditor through their lawyer.

Petitioners contend that a lawyer is not competent to issue a repayment notice, as he is not an authorized officer of the bank within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Under section 2(b) of the Security Interest Rules, a notice to be valid and effective in law ought to be issued by a secured creditor or an authorized officer.

Accepting petitioners’ contention, the Court ruled that only an officer of the bank, as specified by the Board of Directors, can issue a notice of demand of demand under Section 13(2) of the Act as contemplated under Rule 2(b) of the Security Interest Rules, 2002.

About DSLegal

A full service international law firm based in New Delhi with an office in Chicago, USA.
This entry was posted in Banking Law, Civil Law, Company Law, Contract Law, General Law and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s