Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. The submission made by the respondent’s counsel that the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was served by the authorised signatory of “L&T Finance Ltd.” and that was not the secured creditor in the facts of the case, in our considered view, is wholly without substance for the reason that “L&T Finance Ltd.” and “L&T Housing Finance Ltd.” are the companies who in their correspondence with all its customers use a common letterhead having their self­same authorised signatory, as being manifest from the record and it is the seal being put at one stage by the authorised signatory due to some human error of “L&T Finance Ltd.” in place of “L&T Housing Finance Ltd.”. More so, when it is not the case of the respondents that there was any iota of confusion in their knowledge regarding the action being initiated in the instant case other than the secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act for non­fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the Facility Agreement dated 11 th August, 2015 or any substantial prejudice being caused apart from the technical objection being raised while the demand notice under Section 13(2) was served under the SARFAESI Act or in the proceedings in furtherance thereof no interference by the High Court in its limited scope of judicial review was called for. Consequently, in our view, the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.