Decoding Mortgage Redemption in Banking
by Abhishek Saini†
SARFAESI Act
Banks can forfeit entire earnest money and not just extent of loss suffered by it due to auction purchaser’s default: SC
Any dilution of the forfeiture provided under Rule 9(5) of SARFAESI Rules would result in entire auction process under SARFAESI Act being disregarded by mischievous auction purchasers through sham bids, thereby undermining the overall object of the Act of promoting financial stability, reducing NPAs and fostering a more efficient and streamlined mechanism for recovery of bad debts.
SAM advises UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited in Enforcement of security interest against Burnpur Cement Limited
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas advises UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (“UV”) in enforcement of security interest against Burnpur Cement Limited (“BCL”) in its
Delhi High Court| Remedy under Section 13(10) of SARFAESI Act cannot be considered as a remedy independent of the RDB Act
The Court is unable to accept that the legislative intent is to provide parallel regimes for the recovery of debts. The provisions of Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act, thus, cannot be interpreted in the manner as contended on behalf of the petitioner.
Sale Certificate under SARFAESI Act—Whether Registration Mandatory?
by Prashant Tripathi†
Whom to Pay First: A Critical Analysis of the Position of Secured Creditors in the Current Regime
by Govinda Asawa† and Pranay Agarwal††
Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act| Right of redemption of mortgage extinguishes on publication of auction notice: Supreme Court
The respondents in the instant matter constituted the borrower, guarantor and the bank (secured creditor), while the appellants were the auction purchasers.
No bar in law for a secured creditor to directly proceed u/s 14 of SARFAESI Act after withdrawing measures taken u/s 13(4): Delhi High Court
“The scope of writ jurisdiction cannot be allowed to trounce the statutory obligation, on the stratagem of efficacious alternate remedy.”
Banks, Financial Institutions using recovery agents to forcibly seize vehicles over non-payment of loan is illegal: Patna High Court
The right to recovery of the Banks and Financial Institutions if pitted against the constitutional right of life of a person to live with dignity and not to be deprived of without following the established procedure of law, the constitutional rights of the person shall prevail.
NPA Classification ― Whether Opportunity of Prior Hearing Required?
by Prashant Tripathi†
Madhya Pradesh High Court directs DRT to register case against Tata Motors Finance Ltd.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that no document needs to be provided for registering an application under S. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, when the same is not a condition precedent required under the said Section.
Non-signatory parties can be subjected to arbitration in accordance with Doctrine of Group of Companies: Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court held that non-signatory or third party could be subjected to arbitration proceedings without their prior consent. It was necessary to examine the touchstone of direct relationship of signatory parties to the arbitration agreement, forming part of a composite transaction.
Kerala High Court |Violation of SARFAESI Rules for Sale of property is under DRT’s Scope, beyond Article 226
Kerala High Court dismissed a petition seeking setting aside of sale of property conducted in violation of SARFAESI Rules, and saidthat the relief sought is within the scope of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and not Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Only a secured property used as agricultural land can be exempted under SARFAESI Act; Supreme Court sets aside Telangana High Court’s order
Supreme Court opined that instead of shifting the burden of proof on the secured creditor to prove that the secured property was not agricultural property, the Telangana High Court should have laid down the burden of proof on the borrowers.
SARFAESI Act recoveries with respect to the secured assets to prevail over the recoveries under the MSMED Act: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 15 to 23 read with Section 24 of the MSMED Act and the provisions of SARFAESI Act and stated that there is no repugnancy between the two enactments and no conflict between the specific subject of ‘priority' . It, hence, upheld the subsequent enactment of law with non-obstante clause in SARFAESI Act over MSMED Act.
Supreme Court| Suit for damages concerning balance land cannot be barred by Section 34 of SARFAESI Act
Supreme Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court, wherein it has set aside the
Raj HC | Writ Petition not maintainable due to having an alternative and efficacious remedy under S. 17 of the SARFAESI Act
Rajasthan High Court: Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. dismissed the writ petition in view of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioners under
Reduction in stamp duty cannot lead to revenue splitting an instrument into two once it has already been charged under a correct charging provision: Supreme Court
Supreme Court: While dealing with a case under the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, the bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has held that
When 25% of the bid is already paid, whether failure to deposit the remaining 75% empowers the Bank to direct forfeiture of money even when Bank suffered no loss in subsequent auction? SC answers
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., directed the Indian Bank to refund the 25% auction