Sale of a property by Bank invoking SARFESI is as good as sale made by borrower


Madras High Court in the matter of R. Arumugasamy Vs Authorised officer; Review Petition no. 82 and 83 of 2016 held that where there is more than one property mortgaged with the secured creditor, it is the choice of the secured creditor as to against which property it intends to proceed. A sale made by a secured creditor under Section 13(6) of SARFESI Act is as good as the sale made by the borrower.

Partial amount deposited as precondition for entertaining appeal U/s 18 of SARFAESI Act neither secured asset nor a lien #indianlaws


The partial deposit before the DRAT as a pre-condition for considering the appeal on merits in terms of Section 18 of the Act, is not a secured asset. It is not a secured debt either, since the borrower or the aggrieved person has not created any security interest on such pre-deposit in favour of the secured creditor. Therefore,on disposal of the appeal, either on merits or on withdrawal, or on being rendered infructuous, in case, the appellant makes a prayer for refund of the pre-deposit, the same has to be allowed and the pre-deposit has to be returned to the appellant, unless the Appellate Tribunal, on the request of the secured creditor but with the consent of the depositors, had already appropriated the pre-deposit towards the liability of the borrower, or with the consent, had adjusted the amount towards the dues. It is also not a bailment with the bank as provided under Section 148 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Writ Petitions against order passed by DRT in exercise of jurisdiction U/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be entertained #indianlaws


Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained when the alternate remedy is available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out. The writ remedy cannot be permitted to be availed as a routine/ matter of course, but only in exceptional circumstances.Unless the Court is convinced that the case falls under the exceptional categories, the writ petition filed against the order of the Tribunal, passed in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, on account of the legislative intent behind the enactment of the SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act and the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court cannot be entertained.

SARFAESI prevails over the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act #indianlaws


The Supreme Court was observed that the purpose of the two enactments is entirely different. The purpose of one is to provide ameliorative measures for reconstruction of sick companies, and the purpose of the other is to provide for speedy recovery of debts of banks and financial institutions. Both the Acts are "special" in this sense. However, with reference to the specific purpose of reconstruction of sick companies, SICA must be held to be a special law, though it may be considered to be a general law in relation to the recovery of debts. Whereas, the RDDB Act may be considered to be a special law in relation to the recovery of debts and SICA may be considered to be a general law in this regard. 

Provisions of the SARFAESI Act cannot be used to override the provisions of Rent Control Act #indianlaws


Supreme Court held that a landlord cannot be permitted to do indirectly what he has been barred from doing under the Rent Control Act, more so when the two legislations, that is the SARFAESI Act and the Rent Control Act operate in completely different fields.  The provisions of the SARFAESI Act cannot be used to override the provisions of the Rent Control Act. A tenant cannot be arbitrarily evicted by using the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as that would amount to stultifying the statutory rights of protection given to the tenant.

Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act#indianlaws


The Supreme Court held that delay in filing an appeal under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act can be condoned by the Appellate Tribunal under proviso to Section 20 (3) of the RDB Act read with Section 18 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. The contrary view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court was overruled.

Jurisdiction of Civil Court vis-à-vis Scope of Section 34 of the SARFESI


A Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of matters falling under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act as such matters comes under the jurisdiction of the DRT and the Appellate Tribunal

Unnecessary adjournments must not be granted by the DRT


Debt Recovery Tribunal(s) are constituted to ensure expeditious disposal of controversies/ issues between the banks and borrowers in the larger public interest.

© 2010-15