Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the demand notice issued under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was liable to be quashed for want of consideration of the borrowers' objections and for failure to comply with the statutory notice requirement before resorting to measures under section 13(4) of the Act.
Analysis: The borrowers had not been given an opportunity to place their objections or relevant facts before the secured creditor. The governing principle, as explained in the Supreme Court's exposition on the Act, is that no hearing is required before issuance of notice under section 13(2), but once objections are raised they must be considered with due application of mind and the reasons for rejecting them must be communicated. The statutory scheme requires a 60 days' notice before any measure under section 13(4) can be taken, and the creditor must act fairly within that framework.
Conclusion: The notice was quashed for non-compliance with section 13(2). The bank was left free to issue a fresh 60 days notice and, if objections were raised, to consider them and communicate reasons for rejection before proceeding further.