₹1,61,38,521/- together with interest within 60 days. The Appellants sent a reply seeking time to pay the amount but did not raise any contentions challenging the propriety of the notice that is issued. On defaulting payment of the amount within the stipulated time, the Respondent Bank initiated action under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Appellants now contend that the notice under Sec.13(2)is not proper because it has not been issued by an authorised officer as contemplated under Rules 2(a) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. It is pointed out that as per the resolution dated 15.07.2005 the authorised officer who has issued the notice under Sec. 13(2) as well as filed the application under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act was only a manager recovery and therefore, he does not come within the definition of Rule 2(a) which insists that an authorised officer who should not be a person below the rank of the Chief Manager. The proceedings under Sec. 14 are also impugned for the reason that the 9-pointer affidavit and accompanying application are not proper because in the application nothing has been stated regarding the reply which has been sent by the Appellants to Sec. 13(2) notice and the rejoinder has been sent by the Bank and therefore, the proceedings under Sec. 14 is also defective.
