SARFAESI recovery actions can be challenged only before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and its Appellate Tribunal, the Supreme Court has held, so a borrower who says a secured asset was wrongly sold cannot take that claim to a civil court; a Madhya Pradesh High Court direction that kept a damages suit and criminal proceedings open […]
The Patna High Court has held that a writ petition by a widow who says she is neither borrower nor guarantor, challenging a Darbhanga Collector’s 2019 order giving Punjab National Bank possession of a property that includes her dwelling house, is not maintainable because Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act provides an effective remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
The Supreme Court has set aside IFCI’s 2011 SARFAESI sale of the Fernhill resort at Ooty to M/s P.M. Associates, holding that a bid was received despite the DRAT’s restraint, the sale was completed before the mandatory 30-day period expired, and the certificate was issued to a firm that did not bid, and has allowed the borrower’s appeals.
Kerala: The Kerala High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by M/S. M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and its proprietor, M.D. Esthappan. The petitions challenged the enforcement proceedings initiated by Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
The Bombay High Court imposed fine on a litigant Rs.5 lakh for challenging the law that gives immunity to judges. The Court said her claims against two NCLT members were false and not supported by evidence. It also found no good reason to consider her petition. The fine was imposed for misusing the legal process.
The Allahabad High Court emphasized collaboration among stakeholders to address Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) and ensure banking system security. Justices Varma and Saraf rejected the suspension of SARFAESI Act proceedings based on an injunction without a registered lease deed in the case involving M/S Trilokchand Fabrication. They emphasized the Act’s pivotal role and the need to curb unnecessary litigation delaying NPA resolution. The court clarified that unregistered leases cannot impede SARFAESI Act proceedings and nullified the suspension order in this case.
