Landmark Judgments on SARFAESI by Supreme Court of India: Read all Latest Updates on and about SARFAESI Act

Landmark Judgments on SARFAESI by Supreme Court of India: Read all Latest Updates on and about SARFAESI Act

1	Directorate of Enforcement Vs Niraj Tyagi & Ors – [2024] 2 S.C.R. 3112024 INSC 106 Judge : BELA M. TRIVEDI [2024] 2 S.C.R. 315 Directorate of Enforcement v. Niraj Tyagi & Ors. at a fair market value and in a transparent manner. It appears that a series of litigations under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and High Court had ensued between the parties. 7. IHFL on 01.07.2021 ultimately sold the proceedings which had taken place under the SARFAESI Act and before the High Court and this Court, submitted that the respondent-complainant Shipra Group having failed in all the said proceedings had taken recourse to the criminal proceedings to create a fear amongst the financial institution Decision Date : 13-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/843/2024
2	Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India Vs Shanmugavelu – [2024] 2 S.C.R. 122024 INSC 80 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,Manoj Misra,J.B. PARDIWALA principle of Section(s) 73 & 74 respectively of the Contract Act, 1872 Act is applicable to forfeiture of earnest- money deposit under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules. In other words, whether the forfeiture of the earnest-money deposit under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules can be only to the extent loss or damages incurred by the Bank; (ii) Whether, the forfeiture of the entire amount towards the earnest-money deposit under Rule 9(5) of the Rules amounts to unjust enrichment. In other words, whether the quantum of forfeiture under the SARFAESI Rule is limited to the extent of debt Decision Date : 02-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/235/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
3	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer TOTTEMPUDI SALALITH Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 4922023 INSC 923 Judge : VIKRAM NATH,ANIRUDDHA BOSE recovery certifi cate is issued – Reliefs under the two statutes are diff erent and once CIRP results in declaration of moratorium, the enforcement mechanism under the 1993 Act or the SARFAESI Act gets suspended – In such circumstances, after issue of recovery certifi cate, the fi Security Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI ) was issued to the corporate debtor and recovery proceedings were instituted against them before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Three applications were fi led by the exposed lending banks, two before the DRT, Hyderabad being OA No.154 of 2014 and Decision Date : 18-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2348/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
4	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ORS. AND M/S. SUNVIEW ASSETS PVT. LTD. – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 6662023 INSC 869 Judge : ANIRUDDHA BOSE,BELA M. TRIVEDI Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ SARFAESI Act’) were initiated by the Appellant Bank in respect of the Subject Property mortgaged with it. (iii) After certain proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Bombay High Court having taken place between the parties, the Appellant on 13.06.2019 had issued a notice for e-auction sale of the said property under the SARFAESI Act, scheduling the auction sale on 04.07.2019. (iv) The Respondent no.1-Rajat Infrastructure preferred a Decision Date : 04-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1902/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : M.A. dismissed.
5	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer CELIR LLP Vs BAFNA MOTORS (MUMBAI) PVT. LTD. & ORS. – [2023] 13 S.C.R. 532023 INSC 838 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.B. PARDIWALA of Securities Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI Act) on the Borrowers’ right of redemption in an auction conducted under the SARFAESI Act. What is the effect of amendment to Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act read with Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 4. Whether a Bank considerations to override the outcome contemplated by the statutory auction process prescribed by the SARFAESI Act. 6. Whether the right of redemption of mortgage stood extinguished upon publication of notice of auction. Till what point of time the right of redemption of mortgage can be exercised Decision Date : 21-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5542/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
6	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. KSCARDB Vs THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM AND ORS. – [2023] 12 S.C.R. 3182023 INSC 830 Judge : B.V. NAGARATHNA,Ujjal Bhuyan (for short, “ SARFAESI Act, 2002”). It was contended that the Kerala State Co-operative Bank is a state co-operative bank which is an apex bank. That a state co-operative bank, central co-operative bank in the co-operative sector is engaged in the business of banking but the appellant district co-operative banks and the urban banks in the co-operative sector is the transaction of banking business. Further, it was observed that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and particularly Section 13 thereof are also applicable to the institutions, namely, the Kerala State Decision Date : 14-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10069/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
7	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer AXIS BANK LIMITED Vs NAREN SHETH & ANR. – [2023] 14 S.C.R. 5812023 INSC 820 Judge : VIKRAM NATH,Ahsanuddin Amanullah of the Limitation Act will have no application in the present case inasmuch as the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT cannot be said to be before a Court or Tribunal having no jurisdiction – Respondent No.2, being a Secured Creditor, would defi nitely have a right invoke the power under the SARFAESI Act and the said proceedings cannot be said to be without jurisdiction – Therefore, no benefi t u/s.14 would be admissible to Respondent No.2 – Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. [Para Decision Date : 12-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2085/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
8	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA (THROUGH STRESSED ASSETS STABILIZATION FUND CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) Vs SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND OTHERS – [2023] 12 S.C.R. 10522023 INSC 746 Judge : SANJIV KHANNA,SUDHANSHU DHULIA enactment of s.142A of the Customs Act does confer or create a fi rst charge on the dues ‘payable’ under the Customs Act, notwithstanding provisions under any Central Act, but not in cases covered u/s.529A of the Companies Act, RDDBFI Act, SARFAESI Act and the IBC – s.142A, Customs Act, post Act, but not in cases covered under Section 529A of the Companies Act, RDDBFI Act, SARFAESI Act and the IBC. Section 142A of the Customs Act, post its enactment, would dilute the impact of Section 530 of the Companies Act, which had restricted preferential treatment to government taxes Decision Date : 18-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2568/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
9	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. Vs RAMAN ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. – [2023] 10 S.C.R. 12212023 INSC 625 Judge : DIPANKAR DATTA,S. RAVINDRA BHAT reflected under Section 326 of the Companies Act, 2013.Section 327 made payment of taxes subject to the priority embodied in Section 326. It was urged that Section 26E of the Securitization of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter, “ SARFAESI Act”) and Mumbai & Anr.,11 reinforced the priority accorded to secured creditors under Section 26E of SARFAESI Act. 17. Learned counsel submitted that electricity dues did not enjoy any priority, and cited High Court rulings, especially the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in The West Bengal Decision Date : 17-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7976/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
10	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer G. VIKRAM KUMAR Vs STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD & ORS. – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 6242023 INSC 475 Judge : M.R. SHAH,C.T. RAVIKUMAR in favour of respondent no. 1, however, the High Court allowed the writ petition in favour of respondent no.1 – Review application there against dismissed – On appeal, held: Against any steps taken by the Bank u/s.13(4), the aggrieved party has a remedy under the SARFAESI Act by way of appeal no.1 in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was the e–auction notice which was pursuant to the action initiated by the Bank in exercise of powers under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Against any steps taken by the Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act Decision Date : 02-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3152/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
11	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MOSER BAER KARAMCHARI UNION THR. PRESIDENT MAHESH CHAND SHARMA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2023] 6 S.C.R. 852023 INSC 479 Judge : M.B. SHAH,SANJIV KHANNA Act, 2013, SICA, SARFAESI , Recovery of Debts Act etc., into a single Code. It is submitted that the objective of the IBC was to introduce comprehensive and time bound insolvency framework and to maximize the value of assets of all persons and balance the interest of all stakeholders. 4.9 It Decision Date : 02-05-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/421/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
12	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs M/S A.J. INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD AND ANR. – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 7732023 INSC 446 Judge : S. RAVINDRA BHAT,DIPANKAR DATTA erroneously held in the decision of the High Court impugned in CA No.9212 of 2012– Further, in view of the decision in Central Bank of India case, any observation in the decision impugned in CA No.8980 of 2012 touching upon s.16-B of the HPGST Act vis-à-vis s.35 of the SARFAESI Act is of that the findings in the judgments and orders disposing of the writ petitions impugned in two of the four civil appeals ~ the first dated 7th September, 2007 and the other dated 2nd January, 2008 ~ with regard to the scope, ambit and applicability of section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8980/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
13	English           বাংলা – Bengali          हिन्दी – Hindi          தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs FRONTLINE CORPORATION LTD – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 8582023 INSC 386 Judge : Aravind Kumar,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI parties – Financial defaults were committed by the respondent – Demand notice u/s. 13 of the SARFAESI Act was issued by appellant- bank – Demand remained unmet – Appellant declared that it had taken possession of the suit property – Respondent filed securitisation application before the DRT bar on the jurisdiction of the civil court, as provided u/s. 34 of the SARFAESI Act – Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge and observed that the bar u/s. 34 of the SARFAESI Act was not absolute and restrained the appellant from selling the suit property until the Decision Date : 18-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2924/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
14	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS. Vs NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP & ANR. ETC. ETC. – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 182023 INSC 379 Judge : M.M. SUNDRESH,SANJIV KHANNA but are required to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances – In matters where the legislature has provided for a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal, constitutional remedy not to be resorted to – Constitution of India – Art. 226. SARFAESI Act – Purpose and Object – would not come within the purview of Art. 12. Judicial deprecation: Interference of the High Courts in matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act – Held: Said practice is deprecated – Request to the High Courts not to entertain such cases – When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt Decision Date : 17-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2861/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
15	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs HARSOLIA MOTORS AND OTHERS – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 4482023 INSC 367 Judge : C.T. RAVIKUMAR,AJAY RASTOGI submit certain documents to the assessor and, therefore, assessment on such basis could be treated as void. In the meanwhile, SARFAESI proceedings were initiated against the respondent by Canara Bank (secured creditor). 61. While the claim of the respondent was being processed, the respondent Decision Date : 13-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5352/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
16	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer AUTHORISED OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs C. NATARAJAN & ANR – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 10672023 INSC 341 Judge : S. RAVINDRA BHAT,DIPANKAR DATTA installments of the sale price to the secured creditor is an action which is part of the measures specified in section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and, therefore, amenable to challenge on valid ground(s) in an application under section 17(1) thereof. [Para 14][1080-F-G] 1.3. Rule 9(5) legislatively down a penal consequence. ‘Forfeiture’ referred to in sub-rule (5) of rule 9, in the setting of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, has to be construed as denoting a penalty that the defaulting bidder must suffer should he fail to make payment of the entire sale price within the period Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2545/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
17	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer VICTORY IRON WORKS LTD. Vs JITENDRA LOHIA & ANR – [2023] 7 S.C.R. 10212023 INSC 230 Judge : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,Pankaj Mithal Victory, to whom a portion of the land measuring an extent of 10000 sq.ft. (out of the total extent of land of 10.19 acres), 8 For short, “ SARFAESI Act” A B C D E F G H 1029 was given under a Leave and License Agreement dated 19.08.2011, but which Licensee now claims to be in agreed to provide financial assistance to the extent of Rs.2.70 crores to Energy Properties, towards the purchase of the land in question, that was being brought to sale by UCO Bank in exercise of the powers conferred by the SARFAESI Act. This amount of Rs.2.70 crores agreed to be provided Decision Date : 14-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1743/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : Appeal partly allowed.
18	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer K. SREEDHAR Vs M/S RAUS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD & ORS. – [2023] 1 S.C.R. 5792023 INSC 17 Judge : M.M. SUNDRESH,M.R. SHAH DRAT – By entertaining the writ petition straightway under Art. 226/227 challenging the order passed by the DRT, the High Court allowed/permitted the borrower to circumvent the provision of appeal before the DRAT under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act – There was no breach of r. passed by the DRT-I, the High Court has allowed / permitted the borrower to circumvent the provision of appeal before the DRAT under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. [Para 6][588-F-H; 589-A-B] 1.2 The High Court has set aside the sale in favour of the auction purchaser with respect to Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7402/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
19	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer SIDHA NEELKANTH PAPER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANR Vs PRUDENT ARC LTD. & OTHERS – [2023] 1 S.C.R. 5532023 INSC 14 Judge : B.V. NAGARATHNA,M.R. SHAH date of the application. That the “debt” means any liability inclusive of interest. [Para 13][569-D-F] 1.2 An appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is permissible against the order passed by the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Under Section 17, the scope of enquiry is to the steps taken under Section 13(4) against the secured assets. Therefore, whatever amount is mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, in case steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) against the secured assets are under challenge before the DRT will be the ‘debt Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8969/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
20	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED Vs GIRNAR CORRUGATORS PVT. LTD. & ORS. – [2023] 1 S.C.R. 8732023 INSC 12 Judge : M.R. SHAH,KRISHNA MURARI ( SARFAESI Act) – ss. 13(2), 13(4), 14, 17, 26E – Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) – ss. 15-23, 24 – Whether the MSMED Act would prevail over the SARFAESI Act and whether recovery proceedings/recoveries under MSMED Act would prevail over the recoveries proceedings under provisions of the SARFAESI Act – Held : Sec 15 to 23 of the MSMED Act provides a special mechanism for adjudication of dispute between buyer and seller – But does not provides for priority over debt dues of the secured creditor akin to s.26E of the SARFAESI Act – Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6662/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
21	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer VARIMADUGU OBI REDDY Vs B. SREENIVASULU & ORS. – [2022] 16 S.C.R. 11082022 INSC 1207 Judge : AJAY RASTOGI,C.T. RAVIKUMAR loan amount – Respondent borrowers committed default in repaying the outstanding loan amount as also the interest – Loan accounts classified as non-performing assets-NPA – Initiation of recovery proceedings by the respondent Bank-secured creditor under the provisions of the SARFAESI infirmity in the process and cannot be sanctified; and that the auction purchaser failed to deposit balance bid amount within the stipulated time – Proceedings initiated from the stage of s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 till the delivery of physical possession of the scheduled property Decision Date : 16-11-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8470/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
22	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BALKRISHNA RAMA TARLE DEAD THR LRS & ANR Vs PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS – [2022] 13 S.C.R. 4372022 INSC 1022 Judge : KRISHNA MURARI,M.R. SHAH has set aside order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the designated authority under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act, 2002) and directed the designated authority 14 of the SARFAESI Act to dispose of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act afresh, legal heirs of original respondent No. 2 claiming to be the tenant of the mortgaged property, have preferred the present Special Leave Petition. 2. The Decision Date : 26-09-2022 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/16013/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
23	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S. R.K. INDUSTRIES (UNIT-II) LLP Vs M/S. H.R. COMMERCIALS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHER – [2022] 12 S.C.R. 6672022 INSC 872 Judge : J.K. MAHESHWARI,HIMA KOHLI,N.V. RAMANA SARFAESI , the Recovery of Debts Act, the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, into a single code. A comprehensive and time-bound framework was introduced with smooth transitions between reorganisation and liquidation, with an aim to inter alia maximise Decision Date : 26-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7722/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
24	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED Vs KEW PRECISION PARTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. – [2022] 19 S.C.R. 2122022 INSC 800 Judge : J.K. MAHESHWARI,INDIRA BANERJEE Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act. 12. On 12th December 2018, the Corporate Debtor admitted its liability to the Appellant Financial Creditor and offered a one time settlement for a for initiation of CIRP, unlike an application of an Operational Creditor for initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the IBC which may have to be dismissed if there is a pre-existing dispute. 16. The proceedings initiated by the Appellant Financial Creditor under the SARFAESI Act are not Decision Date : 05-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2176/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
25	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED Vs TULIP STAR HOTELS LIMITED & ORS. – [2022] 5 S.C.R. 11122022 INSC 777 Judge : J.K. MAHESHWARI,INDIRA BANERJEE Appellant sent the Corporate Debtor a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI Act) in order to enforce security interests against the Corporate Debtor. On 14th October 2013, the Appellant, its authorized officer, issued a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. 21. On 6th May 2014, the Appellant invoked the personal guarantee of Mr. Ajit Kerkar, Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor. The aggregate assigned debt as on 6th May 2014 of principal and Decision Date : 01-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/84/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
26	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          मराठी – Marathi Disclaimer M/s R. D. JAIN AND CO. Vs CAPITAL FIRST LTD. & ORS. – [2022] 13 S.C.R. 572022 INSC 754 Judge : B.V. NAGARATHNA,M.R. SHAH Magistrate (CMM) shall deem to mean and include Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) – The respondent (secured creditor) instituted proceedings under the SARFAESI Act for recovery of the amount due and payable by the appellant (borrower) – The borrowers refused to the physical possession of security asset – Secured creditor filed an application u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act praying for assistance from the CMM in taking physical possession of the secured asset – The matter was adjourned from time to time – Secured Creditor approached the High Court for Decision Date : 27-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/175/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
27	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED Vs A. BALAKRISHNAN & ANR. – [2022] 5 S.C.R. 10722022 INSC 630 Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,L. NAGESWARA RAO,A.S. BOPANNA Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the SARFAESI Act”). The said notice was followed by a Possession Notice dated 10th January, 2008 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, by the KMBL due to default in payment by the Decision Date : 30-05-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/689/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
28	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs M/S RCM INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND ANOTHER – [2022] 7 S.C.R. 10902022 INSC 584 Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,L. NAGESWARA RAO moratorium for any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property including any action under the SARFAESI Act. It is clear that once the CIRP is commenced, there is complete prohibition for any action to foreclose, recover enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property. The words “including any action under the SARFAESI Act” are significant. The legislative intent is clear that after the CIRP is initiated, all actions including any action under the SARFAESI Act to Decision Date : 18-05-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4750/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
29	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED Vs NARENDRA JAYANTILAL TRIVEDI & ANR. – [2022] 19 S.C.R. 3602022 INSC 572 Judge : B.V. NAGARATHNA,M.R. SHAH under the SARFAESI Act to recover the amount due and payable since 1986 and has stalled the recovery proceedings – In spite of the strong observations made by the adjudicating authority in the earlier order re-produced by the Single Judge in his judgment and the strong observations made by a demand notice upon the judgment debtor – respondent No. 1 and others under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI Act) for a sum of Rs. 27,35,85,200.62/- as on 20.06.2011, together with Decision Date : 13-05-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4026/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
30	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          मराठी – Marathi Disclaimer NKGSB COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED Vs SUBIR CHAKRAVARTY & ORS. – [2022] 1 S.C.R. 11772022 INSC 238 Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,C.T. RAVIKUMAR An Advocate Commissioner is certainly an officer subordinate to the court and the words employed in Section 14 (1A) of the SARFAESI Act are not to be understood as meaning an officer subordinate in service. Section 284 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in fact empowers an relating thereto and forward the assets and documents to the secured creditors. 9. The Advocate Commissioners appointed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is in tune with Section 14(1-A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. As per Section 14 of the Act, the secured creditors Decision Date : 25-02-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1637/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
31	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2022] 1 S.C.R. 6612022 INSC 230 Judge : VINEET SARAN,L. NAGESWARA RAO the company – Subsequently, the Commissioner again confirmed the demand of excise duty, imposed penalty and also ordered for confiscation of all land, building, plant, machinery of RIL – Besides this, RIL was also issued notice u/s. 13(2) and also s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act since RIL failed s. 11E in the 1944 Act w.e.f. 08.04.2011, and the provisions contained in the SARFAESI Act, 2002 would have an overriding effect on the provisions of the 1944 Act – Thus, the confiscation orders quashed – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Decision Date : 24-02-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2196/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
32	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BANK OF BARODA Vs M/S KARWA TRADING COMPANY & ANR. – [2022] 1 S.C.R. 11002022 INSC 169 Judge : SANJIV KHANNA,M.R. SHAH – Borrower failed to repay the loan as per terms & conditions of the agreement – The account of the borrower became NPA on 31.10.2012 – Notice u/s.13(2) of SARFAESI Act served upon the borrower on 07.01.2013 demanding sum of Rs.1,85,37,218.80/- – Bank took symbolic possession of the immovable / residential house and issued notice u/s. 13(4) of SARFAESI Act on 22.08.2013 – The bank issued sale notice by public auction of the residential property on 16.12.2013 – Reserve price fixed was Rs.48.65 lakhs – Date of auction notified was 20.01.2014 – Borrower challenged the auction by Decision Date : 10-02-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/363/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
33	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SUBHASH CHANDER & ORS. Vs M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.(BPCL) & ANR. – [2022] 8 S.C.R. 1082022 INSC 107 Judge : AJAY RASTOGI,ABHAY S. OKA further indulgence of this Court. 14. It may be relevant to note that in the interregnum period, title deed of the subject property in question was mortgaged with the Punjab National Bank creating security interest and after the account of the appellants became NPA, proceedings under the SARFAESI Decision Date : 28-01-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7517/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
34	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BANK OF BARODA & ANR Vs MBL INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED & ORS. – [2022] 12 S.C.R. 7612022 INSC 53 Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,M.M. SUNDRESH Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘ SARFAESI Act’ for short), after duly invoking the personal guarantee of the Respondent No.3. This was followed by a similar action at the hands of Respondent No.8 (M/s Allahabad Bank) and M/s. State Bank of and Jaipur. We are given to understand that M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur got merged with State Bank of India. The aforesaid two proceedings invoking Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act were initiated in the month of February and March, 2013, respectively. 5. On the aforesaid Decision Date : 18-01-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8411/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
35	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED Vs VISHWA BHARATI VIDYA MANDIR & ORS. – [2022] 1 S.C.R. 9502022 INSC 44 Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.[2022] 1 S.C.R. 950 950 PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED v. VISHWA BHARATI VIDYA MANDIR & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 257-259 of 2022) JANUARY 12, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] SARFAESI : Default in repayment High Court on the ground that communication/letter dated 13.08.2015 was a possession notice under s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, which was against the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – High Court entertained the writ petitions under Art.226 against the appellant and passed Decision Date : 12-01-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/257/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
36	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer THE BIJNOR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BIJNOR & OTHERS Vs MEENAL AGARWAL & OTHERS – [2021] 9 S.C.R. 4162021 INSC 899 Judge : M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA despite the fact that it was specifically pointed out before the High Court by way of counter affidavit that the recovery proceedings under SARFAESI Act are pending; the borrower and her husband have availed two credit facilities and both the loan accounts are maintained regularly and the impugned judgment and order, the High Court observed that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act have remained pending for seven years and the Bank has been unable to recover its dues and therefore the hope of recovery is illusory. This conclusion is not supported by any material on Decision Date : 15-12-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7411/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
37	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ARCE POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs M/S. ALPHINE PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS – [2021] 11 S.C.R. 10592021 INSC 820 Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,L. NAGESWARA RAO,SANJIV KHANNA express conduct in consideration of some compromise – However, a statutory right may also be waived by implied conduct, like, by wanting to take a chance of a favourable decision – The fact that the other side has acted on it, is sufficient consideration – SARFAESI Act. SARFAESI Act : while accepting defaults and non payment enlisted reasons for not being able to adhere to payment schedule and requested to grant further moratorium – Bank granted further moratorium and deferred action under SARFAESI Act to enable Borrower to submit detailed project/viability report – Decision Date : 03-12-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7372/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
38	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED Vs UV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. – [2021] 7 S.C.R. 5322021 INSC 794 Judge : M.R. SHAH,SANJIV KHANNA questions required to be dealt with by the DRT in the proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act – Assignee has already initiated the proceedings u/s.13 which can be challenged by the appellant – Thus, the High Court justified in rejecting plaint/dismissing the suit in view of bar u/s.34 of 34 of SARFAESI Act shall not be applicable. However, it is required to be noted that except the words used ‘fraud’/ ’fraudulent’ there are no specific particulars pleaded with respect to the ‘fraud’. It appears that by a clever drafting and using the words ‘fraud’/’fraudulent’ without Decision Date : 26-11-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6669/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
39	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer V NAGARAJAN Vs SKS ISPAT AND POWER LTD.& ORS. – [2021] 14 S.C.R. 7362021 INSC 663 Judge : VIKRAM NATH,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,B.V. NAGARATHNA predictability woven into its underlying design to ensure higher recovery rates and immediate liquidation, in the event of a failed resolution. As noted by this Court in Essar Steel (supra), the insolvency regime in India was overhauled after the provisions of SICA, SARFAESI and Recovery of Decision Date : 22-10-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3327/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
40	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer S. KARTHIK & ORS. Vs N. SUBHASH CHAND JAIN & ORS. – [2021] 13 S.C.R. 10962021 INSC 534 Judge : B.V. NAGARATHNA,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,L. NAGESWARA RAO of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Section 13 – Enforcement of Security Interest – Notice to Sale – Rule 9 of the SARFAESI Rules – 30 days’ notice – The present appeal challenges the common judgment of the High Court disposing of four writ petitions – Loan transaction of of – Recourse to series of proceedings to block the enforcement of a security interest – Dilatory tactics – Held: Every attempt has been made to frustrate the purpose of the SARFAESI Act – Three rounds of litigation – It appears that the appellants were only interested in protracting Decision Date : 23-09-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5920/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
41	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer EBIX SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF EDUCOMP SOLUTIONS LIMITED & ANR. – [2021] 14 S.C.R. 3212021 INSC 468 Judge : M.R. SHAH,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD Rhino Re Rhino Enterprises Properties Ltd. Schofield v Smith RP Resolution Professional SARFAESI Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 SBI State Bank of India SBI Application CA No 639 (PB) of 2018 – filed by SBI before Decision Date : 13-09-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3224/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
42	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer HEMRAJ RATNAKAR SALIAN Vs HDFC BANK LTD. & ORS. – [2021] 8 S.C.R. 5292021 INSC 408 Judge : KRISHNA MURARI,S. ABDUL NAZEER any protection of the Rent Act. Even if the tenancy has been claimed to be renewed in terms of Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act, the Borrower would be required to seek consent of the secured creditor for transfer of the Secured Asset by way of sale, lease or otherwise, after issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and, admittedly, no such consent has been sought by the Borrower in the instant case. [Para 14][535-F-H; 536-A-B] Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 1 : [2014] 11 SCR 605; Decision Date : 17-08-2021 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/843/2021 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Dismissed
43	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SUMAN CHADHA & ANR. Vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA – [2021] 8 S.C.R. 3702021 INSC 386 Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued for recovery of Rs. 28,82,25,942.24 plus interest. It was followed by a possession notice under section 13(4) in respect of two properties. (iii) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed S.A. No. 367/ 2014 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi (‘DRT-III’ for short), under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, the DRT-III declined to grant any interim relief against the physical possession of the aforesaid properties. (iv) The petitioners filed an appeal but could not deposit Rs. 7 crores being 25% of the amount demanded Decision Date : 09-08-2021 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL)/28592/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
44	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED Vs BISHAL JAISWAL & ANR. – [2021] 3 S.C.R. 5242021 INSC 254 Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,HRISHIKESH ROY – Some original lenders of the corporate debtor, assigned the debts owed to them by the corporate debtor to the appellant – Appellant took actual physical possession of project assets of the corporate debtor under the SARFAESI Act and filed application u/s.7 of IBC before the National Company the appellant issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 [“ SARFAESI Act”] on behalf of itself and other consortium lenders to the corporate debtor. On 01.06.2016, the appellant took Decision Date : 15-04-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/323/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
45	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. Vs M/S. PEPSI FOODS LTD. (NOW PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.) – [2021] 4 S.C.R. 12021 INSC 227 Judge : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,R.F. NARIMAN,HRISHIKESH ROY and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “ SARFAESI Act”) holding that in the circumstances mentioned, the deposit of 75% of the amount claimed as a pre-condition to the hearing of an “appeal” before the Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. v. M/S. PEPSI FOODS LTD. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] A B C D E F G H 28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. Act was onerous, oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of Decision Date : 06-04-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1106/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
46	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED Vs KOTAK INDIA VENTURE (OFFSHORE) FUND (EARLIER KNOWN AS KOTAK INDIA VENTURE LIMITED) & ORS. – [2021] 7 S.C.R. 1122021 INSC 216 Judge : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,S.A. BOBDE,A.S. BOPANNA earlier processes like civil suit, winding up petition, SARFAESI proceeding and SICA have failed to secure the desired result. The provision under the IB Code is with the intention of making a debtor to seek the creditor. In that regard, Dr. Singhvi has referred to the decisions in the case of Decision Date : 26-03-2021 | Case No : WRIT TO PETITION (CIVIL)…/48/2019 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
47	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer LAXMI PAT SURANA Vs UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR. – [2021] 2 S.C.R. 9242021 INSC 220 Judge : KRISHNA MURARI,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,A.M. KHANWILKAR for the benefit of all the creditors (COC). That LAXMI PAT SURANA v. UNION BANK OF INDIA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] A B C D E F G H 960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R. would also include the assets involved in SARFAESI Act and RDBA, 1973 proceedings. Thus the Bank has Decision Date : 26-03-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2734/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
48	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SESH NATH SINGH & ANR. Vs BAIDYABATI SHEORAPHULI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ANR. – [2021] 3 S.C.R. 8062021 INSC 199 Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,HEMANT GUPTA of Security Interest Act, 2002: s.13(4) – The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate, as the case may be, exercising powers under s.14 of the SARFAESI Act, functions as a Civil Court/Executing Court – Proceedings under the SARFAESI Act would, therefore, be deemed be civil proceedings in a Court – Moreover, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act under s.13(4) are appealable to the DRT under s.18 of the SARFAESI Act – Argument that proceedings under the SARFAESI Act would not qualify for exclusion under s.14 of the Limitation Act, because Decision Date : 22-03-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9198/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
49	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer A. NAVINCHANDRA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED & ORS. – [2021] 3 S.C.R. 5972021 INSC 128 Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI outside such winding up proceeding, notices having already been issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [“ SARFAESI Act”]. The Court referred to an order of 12.04.2018, by which provisional liquidator was to take physical possession of the assets of SRUIL within one week of the date of that order. Importantly, paragraph 2 of the said order stated: “2. Ms. Maitra states that the secured creditors have already commenced proceedings under SARFAESI against the company. As Decision Date : 01-03-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4230/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
50	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK PVT. LIMITED Vs AMBUJ A. KASLIWAL & ORS. – [2021] 3 S.C.R. 10012021 INSC 90 Judge : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,S.A. BOBDE,A.S. BOPANNA Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘ SARFAESI ’ for short) relating to pre-deposit in order to avail the remedy of appeal has expressed a similar opinion in the case of Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs. UCO Bank and Others (2011) 4 SCC 548, which reads as hereunder: Decision Date : 16-02-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/538/2021 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
51	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S. RELIANCE ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. Vs M/S HOTEL POONJA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. – [2021] 1 S.C.R. 4952021 INSC 35 Judge : SANJIV KHANNA,INDIRA BANERJEE pursuant to Section 3 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI ). 3. The Respondent M/s Hotel Poonja International Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the “Corporate Debtor”, was granted credit/ loan facilities inter Decision Date : 21-01-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4221/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
52	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer C. BRIGHT Vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS. – [2020] 7 S.C.R. 9972020 INSC 633 Judge : AJAY RASTOGI,HEMANT GUPTA,L. NAGESWARA RAO recorded in writing, is a directory provision. The High Court held as under: “18. The primary question in these Writ Petitions, namely, whether the time limits in section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are mandatory or directory should be answered in light of the principles enumerated above. As in as much as it would delay the process of taking physical possession of assets instead of expediting such process by entailing the filing of another application for such purpose. For all these reasons, the time limit stipulation in the amended Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is directory Decision Date : 05-11-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3441/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
53	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer THE KARAD URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. Vs SWWAPNIL BHINGARDEVAY & ORS. – [2020] 13 S.C.R. 4652020 INSC 533 Judge : A.S. BOPANNA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,S.A. BOBDE Private Ltd. (SIPL) and that a bank by name, Janata Sahkari Bank Ltd. had taken possession of the same under the SARFAESI Act – Financial creditor and Resolution Professional both filed separate appeals respectively – Held: It is not the case of corporate debtor or its promoter/Director and that a bank by name, Janata Sahkari Bank Limited, Pune had taken possession of the same under the SARFAESI Act; and (iv) That even the advertisement issued by the Resolution Professional on 30.03.2018 inviting Expression of Interest, was vitiated in as much as the invitation Decision Date : 04-09-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2955/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
54	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer UNION OF INDIA Vs ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA ETC. ETC. – [2020] 11 S.C.R. 5412020 INSC 527 Judge : M.R. SHAH,ARUN MISHRA,S. ABDUL NAZEER Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI Act) or under any other law. A question of seminal significance also arises whether the spectrum is a natural resource, the Government is holding the same as cestuique trust. In view of the nature of the resource, it can be subjected to Securities Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI Act) or under any other law. 22. A question of seminal significance also arises whether the spectrum is a natural resource, the Government is holding the same as cestuique trust. In view of the nature of the resource, it can be subjected to Decision Date : 01-09-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6328/2015 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
55	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BABULAL VARDHARJI GURJAR Vs VEER GURJAR ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANR. – [2020] 13 S.C.R. 3682020 INSC 490 Judge : DINESH MAHESHWARI,A.M. KHANWILKAR relation 10 ‘NPA’ for short. 11 Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’. 12 ‘DRT ’ for short. 13 Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Act of 1993’. 14 Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Rules of 2016’. BABULAL VARDHARJI GURJAR v. VEER GURJAR ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. the sole aim of browbeating the corporate debtor and forcing it to pay the unrealistic claim of the applicant. With specific reference to the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, it was contended that as per the notice under Section 13 (2), the account of corporate debtor with Indian Decision Date : 14-08-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6347/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
56	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer TELANGANA STATE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. Vs M/S SRIGDHAA BEVERAGES – [2020] 4 S.C.R. 2952020 INSC 410 Judge : K.M. JOSEPH,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ SARFAESI Act’). The moot point of law, which arises for consideration, is whether the liability towards previous electricity dues of the last owner could be mulled on to the respondent. 2. The unit in question is a mineral Decision Date : 01-06-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1815/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
57	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          मराठी – Marathi Disclaimer PANDURANG GANPATI CHAUGULE Vs VISHWASRAO PATIL MURGUD SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED – [2020] 5 S.C.R. 10382020 INSC 382 Judge : ANIRUDDHA BOSE,INDIRA BANERJEE,ARUN MISHRA,VINEET SARAN,M.R. SHAH – Seventh Schedule – List I, Entry 45; List II, Entry 32 – Power of the Parliament to legislate – Applicability of SARFAESI Act, 2002 to co-operative banks – Held: Co-operative banks registered under the State legislation and multi-State level co-operative societies registered under MSCS under the State legislation and multi-State co-operative banks are ‘banks’ u/s.2(1)(c), SARFAESI Act – Recovery is an essential part of banking; as such, the recovery procedure prescribed u/ s.13 of the said Act, a legislation relatable to Entry 45, List I, Seventh Schedule, is Decision Date : 05-05-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5674/2009 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered
58	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S. TRIPOWER ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITED Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. – [2020] 7 S.C.R. 6262020 INSC 360 Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,AJAY RASTOGI on 28.02.17 under the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the petitioner bank herein, to M/s. Tripower Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-115. 7. R-4 company has filed its written statement in the OA, wherein it has been alleged that no valid mortgage over OA ‘B’ schedule properties had been this Tribunal. In the meanwhile, this petition has been filed for return of the original documents, which have been marked as Exh. A-110 to A-114. 8. The mere reason that R-4 company and R-10 have not raised the above said issue during the SARFAESI proceedings, cannot be a valid reason Decision Date : 24-04-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2373/2020 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
59	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          ಕನ್ನಡ – Kannada Disclaimer K. VIRUPAKSHA & ANR. Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. – [2020] 2 S.C.R. 10202020 INSC 261 Judge : R. BANUMATHI,A.S. BOPANNA,S. ABDUL NAZEER – Appellants filed petition u/s.482, CrPC – Dismissed – Held: SARFAESI Act is a complete code in itself which provides the procedure to be followed by secured creditor and also the remedy to the aggrieved parties including borrower – In such circumstance, if there is any discrepancy in the and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI Act) is to be resorted to. Further the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 provides the procedure to be adopted with regard to the valuation and sale of Decision Date : 03-03-2020 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/377/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
60	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.v. BABULAL LADE & ORS. Vs BABULAL LADE & ORS. – [2019] 14 S.C.R. 4852019 INSC 1318 Judge : KRISHNA MURARI,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR Appellant-Bank does not enjoy any paramount charge over the sale proceeds either – Instead, as per s.13(7) of the SARFAESI Act, the sale letter and the sale certificate constitute a contract which displaces the order of distribution stipulated under the said provision – The cumulative effect of – Manner of distributing the money received by the secured creditor through the sale of secured assets – s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act allows a secured creditor to take possession of the secured assets of a borrower-in- default, including the right to transfer them by way of sale – Decision Date : 04-12-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/232/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
61	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS – [2019] 17 S.C.R. 5592019 INSC 1310 Judge : ANIRUDDHA BOSE,R.F. NARIMAN,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the statute must be followed, has been quoted with approval. For instance, Union Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon19 held that the availability of a remedy of appeal under the DRT Act, 1993 and SARFAESI Act, 2002 should deter the Decision Date : 03-12-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9170/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
62	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          മലയാളം – Malayalam Disclaimer ROJER MATHEW Vs SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS. – [2019] 16 S.C.R. 12019 INSC 1236 Judge : RANJAN GOGOI,N.V. RAMANA,DEEPAK GUPTA,SANJIV KHANNA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD Court A B C D E F G H 41 challenging the constitutional validity of Section 13 (5-A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest ( SARFAESI ) Act, 2002 which permits secured creditors to participate in auction of immoveable Decision Date : 13-11-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8588/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
63	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer JIGNESH SHAH & ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – [2019] 12 S.C.R. 6782019 INSC 1080 Judge : SURYA KANT,R. SUBHASH REDDY,R.F. NARIMAN proceedings were pending adjudication. Meanwhile, under the Securitisation and Restructure of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “ SARFAESI Act”), a notice dated 3rd March, 2016 was issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. question which arose before the Court was whether the invocation of the SARFAESI Act, being beyond limitation, would be saved because of the pending proceedings under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Court negatived the plea of the Decision Date : 25-09-2019 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/455/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
64	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK Vs D. VISALAKSHI AND ANR. – [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1772019 INSC 1067 Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,DINESH MAHESHWARI 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. In our considered opinion, there is no casus omissus. The interpretation given by us does not amount to reading anything in the provision, which the legislature never intended to, nor the interpretation given by us, in any way, defeats the intention of meaning without taking any assistance from Code of Criminal Procedure in view of Section 35 of Act, 2002, which provides that provisions of the Act will override all other laws which includes Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also held that when SARFAESI Act is a complete code, there is no need Decision Date : 23-09-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6295/2015 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
65	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BAJARANG SHYAMSUNDER AGARWAL Vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR. – [2019] 12 S.C.R. 3522019 INSC 1017 Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,N.V. RAMANA,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: ss. 13, 14, 17 and 35 – Tenancy rights over secured interest – Tenant, if protected from ejectment proceedings under the SARFAESI Act – On facts, secured asset mortgaged by borrower/landlord with the bank in equitable mortgage, valid leaseholder to merit the protection sought for – Furthermore, when the SARFAESI Act proceedings were pending, the factum of tenancy was never revealed by the parties – Tenant himself pleaded that he was a tenant who had entered into an oral agreement, such tenancy impliedly does not Decision Date : 11-09-2019 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1371/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
66	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S KUT ENERGY PVT. LTD. & ORS. Vs THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, LARGE CORPORATE BRANCH, LUDHIANA & ORS. – [2019] 10 S.C.R. 7362019 INSC 928 Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,VINEET SARAN Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (“ SARFAESI Act”, for short) on 15.03.2017. The amount due to the Bank as on 14.03.2017 was stated to be Rs.106,07,91,644.26/-. 3. Soon thereafter, three proposals were made by the appellants in quick succession on 01.08.2017 and 19.08.2017 offering Rs.84, 87 and 90 crores respectively for One Time Settlement (“OTS”, for short). On 22.08.2017 a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued by the Bank in respect of the Project in question. On 29.08.2017 a sale notice was Decision Date : 20-08-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6016/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
67	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SHAKEENA & ANR. Vs BANK OF INDIA & ORS. – [2019] 11 S.C.R. 3412019 INSC 922 Judge : AJAY RASTOGI,A.M. KHANWILKAR the sale of the secured asset in public auction as per section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, which ended in issuance of a sale certificate as per rule 9(7) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2003 (in short “the rules”) is a complete and absolute sale for the purpose of SARFAESI Act or Transfer of Property Act, in view of the Section 37 of SARFAESI Act? And (iii) Whether section 35 of the SARFAESI Act has the effect of overriding section 37 of the SARFAESI Act?” While answering the first point, the Court observed thus: “10.7 At the outset, it is to be stated that Decision Date : 20-08-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8097/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
68	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2019] 9 S.C.R. 2892019 INSC 799 Judge : ARUN MISHRA,UDAY UMESH LALIT existing statutes such as T.P. Act, Debt Recovery Tribunal Act, SARFAESI Act, it is apparent from a perusal of RERA, which is a special Act, that certain rights have been created in favour of the buyers. The provisions of RERA have to prevail. When it comes to the question of protection and any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’). The order Decision Date : 23-07-2019 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/940/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed not complying condition order | Direction Issue : Directions issued
69	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer DHARANI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2019] 6 S.C.R. 3072019 INSC 457 Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,VINEET SARAN new possibili- ties for time bound resolution of stressed assets. The SARFAESI and Debt Recovery Acts have been amended to facilitate recov- eries. A comprehensive approach is being adopted for effective implementation of various schemes for timely resolution of Decision Date : 02-04-2019 | Case No : TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL)/66/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
70	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer K. SASHIDHAR Vs INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & ORS. – [2019] 3 S.C.R. 8452019 INSC 148 Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,AJAY RASTOGI read the requirement of fairness and reasonableness into Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. The court declared that reasons must be given and communicated. This “reading in” of the principle of fairness and reasonableness, was eventually codified in the form of Section 13(3-A) of that Act. Decision Date : 05-02-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10673/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
71	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SWISS RIBBONS PVT. LTD. & ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2019] 3 S.C.R. 5352019 INSC 95 Judge : NAVIN SINHA,R.F. NARIMAN existing insolvency legislation. The judgments reviewed are those after June 2002 when the SARFAESI Act came into effect. It is illustrative of both debtor and creditor led process of corporate insolvency, and reveals a matrix of fragmented and contrary outcomes, rather than coherent Decision Date : 25-01-2019 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/99/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Direction Issue : Petitions disposed of
72	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S HINDON FORGE PVT. LTD. & ANR. Vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GHAZIABAD & ANR. – [2018] 11 S.C.R. 10192018 INSC 1034 Judge : NAVIN SINHA,R.F. NARIMAN of Securities Interest Act, 2002: s.17(1) – Whether an application under s.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act at the instance of a borrower, is maintainable even before physical or actual possession of secured assets is taken by banks/financial institutions in exercise of their powers under and financial institutions can recover their debts by selling properties outside the court process under the SARFAESI Act by adhering to the statutory conditions laid down by the said Act. It is only when such statutory conditions are not adhered to that the Debts Recovery Tribunal comes in Decision Date : 01-11-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10873/2018 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Allowed
73	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SUZUKI PARASRAMPURIA SUITINGS PVT. LTD. Vs THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF MAHENDRA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS – [2018] 12 S.C.R. 9062018 INSC 937 Judge : K.M. JOSEPH,NAVIN SINHA,RANJAN GOGOI SARFAESI Act– Challenged by appellant for recall/review of said order contending that it never sought the status of a secured creditor in lieu of the IFCI but had simply desired to be adjudged a transferee from IFCI of an actionable claim u/s.130 of the T.P. Act – Held: Appellant in claim in the law, it made a complete volte face from its earlier stand, contrary to its own pleadings, and contended that it had [2018] 12 S.C.R. 906 906 A B C D E F G H 907 never sought the status of a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act – A litigant cannot take Decision Date : 08-10-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10322/2018 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Dismissed
74	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs V. RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR. – [2018] 10 S.C.R. 9742018 INSC 711 Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,INDU MALHOTRA No.1 is dated 22.02.2014. 3. As the Respondent No.2 Company did not pay its debts in time, the account of Respondent No.2 was classified as a non-performing asset on 26.07.2015. Consequent thereto, the Appellant issued a notice dated 04.08.2015 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI demanding an outstanding amount of Rs.61,13,28,785.48 from the Respondents within the statutory period of 60 days. As no payment was forthcoming, a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 18.11.2016. 4. As matters stood thus, an application was filed by Decision Date : 14-08-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3595/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
75	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer INDIAN BANK & ANR. Vs K PAPPIREDDIYAR & ANR. – [2018] 6 S.C.R. 6112018 INSC 626 Judge : DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR – ss. 31(i), 2(zf) – Security interest created in agricultural land – Applicability of SARFAESI Act – Held: Classification of land in the revenue records as agricultural is not dispositive or conclusive of the question whether the SARFAESI Act does or does not apply – Whether a parcel the proceedings initiated by the bank under the SARFAESI Act are nullity as the Act does not apply to agricultural land, thus, security interest in agricultural land cannot be enforced, set aside – Proceedings remitted back for being considered afresh. The issue arose whether the High Court Decision Date : 20-07-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6641/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
76	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ITC LIMITED Vs BLUE COAST HOTELS LTD. & ORS. – [2018] 5 S.C.R. 5162018 INSC 241 Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,S.A. BOBDE purchaser was held entitled to the charge which the vendor had under s 55(4) (b) on the property in the hands of the buyer. The court, after observing that the present section did not apply to court 45 2(L) SARFAESI Act 46 2 (l) “financial asset” means debt or receivables and includes — (i) Decision Date : 19-03-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2928/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
77	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer DWARIKA PRASAD Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. – [2018] 3 S.C.R. 292018 INSC 210 Judge : DIPAK MISRA,A.M. KHANWILKAR,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD respondent) which had disbursed the loan initiated proceedings by issuing a recall notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(‘ SARFAESI Act’) on 12 September 2013. Neither was a representation made nor was deed. 5. Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act provides as follows: “(8)If the duesof the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by him are tendered to the secured creditor at any time before the date fixed for sale or transfer, the secured asset shall not be Decision Date : 06-03-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/148/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
78	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED Vs M/S. DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND OTHERS – [2018] 1 S.C.R. 10962018 INSC 200 Judge : A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Proceedings under the Securities and Reconstruction of Financial Assests and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI Act) are to be placed on high pedestal. SARFAESI Act is a special enactment which was enacted by the Parliament to to realise the dues from the respondents, the predecessor company and the appellant devised the plan of merger so as to attract the provisions of SARFAESI Act. [Para 37] [1122-C] 2.4 It will also not be correct to say that if the loan is allowed to be brought within the SARFAESI Act Decision Date : 23-02-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/18/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
79	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer LOK PRAHARI, THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S. N. SHUKLA Vs UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS WRIT PETITION (C) No. 784 OF 2015 FEBRUARY 16, 2018 – [2018] 2 S.C.R. 8922018 INSC 164 Judge : S. ABDUL NAZEER,JASTI CHELAMESWAR commercial purposes from public financial institutions by LEGISLATORS or their ASSOCIATES either directly or through bodies corporate which are controlled by them; a notorious fact in a good number of cases. Such loan accounts become non-performing assets27 (NPAs) within the meaning of SARFAESI Decision Date : 16-02-2018 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/784/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
80	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ANOTHER Vs MATHEW K. C. – [2018] 1 S.C.R. 2332018 INSC 71 Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,NAVIN SINHA Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as the ‘ SARFAESI Act’), on deposit of Rs.3,50,000/-within two weeks. An appeal against the same has also been dismissed by the Division Bench observing that counter affidavit having been filed, it would be open for the Appellant Bank institution of the writ petition was Rs.41,82,560/-. Despite repeated notices, the Respondent failed and neglected to pay the dues. Statutory notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to the Respondent on 21.01.2015. The objections under Section 13(3A) were considered, and rejection Decision Date : 30-01-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1281/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
81	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer AGARWAL TRACOM PVT. LTD. Vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. – [2017] 11 S.C.R. 1642017 INSC 1146 Judge : ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE,R.K. AGRAWAL (PNB) before the DRT by filing an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. [Para 31)(176-01 1. 7 The writ court as also the appellate court were justified in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition on the ground of G availability ofalternativc statutory remedy of filing application under Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act before the concerned tribunal to challenge the action of the PNB in forfeiting the appellant’s deposit under Ruic 9(5). There is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. The H AGARWAL TRACOM PVT. LTD. v. PUNJAB Decision Date : 27-11-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/19847/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
82	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M. D. FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Vs HERO FINCORP LTD. – [2017] 13 S.C.R. 8002017 INSC 976 Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL 2002 ( SARFAESI Act) – C ss.2(l)(m)(iv),(o),(zd) and 13(2), 31A, 35, 37- Simultaneous proceedings for recovery under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the SARFAESI Act – Permissibility of- Appellants borrowed monies from respondent, against security of immovable properties ‘Non-Banking Financial Companies’ as financial institutions and directing that provisions of SARFAESI Act shall apply to such financial institutions E – Respondent, a Non-Banking Financial Company was notified as a financial institution – Respondent issued a notice uls. 13(2), SARFAESI Act Decision Date : 21-09-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/15147/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
83	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MOBILOX INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs KIRUSA SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED – [2017] 10 S.C.R. 10062017 INSC 975 Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,R.F. NARIMAN Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and the SARFAESI Act, 2002. F Meanwhile, the Goswami Committee Report, submitted in 1993, condemned the liquidation procedure prescribed by the Companies Act, 1956 as unworkable and being beset with delays at all levels – delaying tactics employed This was followed by the Tiwari Committee of 1981, which introduced the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985. Following economic liberalization in the 1990s, two Narsimham Committee reports led to the Recovery of Debts and G Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Meanwhile, the Decision Date : 21-09-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9405/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
84	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer DOMNIC ALEX FERNANDES (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2017] 7 S.C.R. 6172017 INSC 763 Judge : ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,UDAY UMESH LALIT his rights under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of G Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the SARFAESI Act). Answering the question in the negative, it was held that such a situation was not contemplated as it will result in a central Decision Date : 17-08-2017 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/34/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
85	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MAHARAJI EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. – [2017] 4 S.C.R. 7902017 INSC 1288 Judge : S. ABDUL NAZEER,ARUN MISHRA Trust and the construction company in respect of specific E p,erformance of the agreement, interim injunction was passed not to sell the property in question therein – Proceedings by HUDCO under SARFAESI Act – Dispute as regards the Property No. 6 (which included 21 acres exchanged between the Trust and the construction company, as to whether it could be sold under F SARFAESI Act for satisfying the dues of the Trust – Held: 21 acres out of the property No. 6 (which was obtained in exchange) was unencumbered – It cannot be treated as accession to property under Decision Date : 08-05-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6463/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
86	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer POWER MACHINES INDIA LIMITED Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. – [2017] 6 S.C.R. 5552017 INSC 355 Judge : S. ABDUL NAZEER,ARUN MISHRA ofl 996 cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is liable to be rejected on the anvil of the aforesaid reasoning. 17. This Court while considering the provisions ofSecuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI Act) in legislation it would be necess}lry to see that the person aggrieved gets a fair deal at the hands of those vested with power under such legislation. This Court also considered the question whether the SARFAESI Act was uncalled for and a superimposition of an undesired law in the light of operation Decision Date : 17-04-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5317/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
87	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer CANARA BANK Vs M. AMARENDER REDDY & ANR. – [2017] 3 S.C.R. 7482017 INSC 1270 Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,DIPAK MISRA Mathew Vurgliese (supru), in paragraphs 30, 31 and 33 of the said decision, the court observed thus: “30. Therefore, by virtue of the stipulations contained under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, in particular, Section 13(8), any sale or transfer of a secured asset, cannot take place as to the procedure to be followed by a secured creditor while resorting to a sale after the issuance of the proceedings under Sections 13(1) to (4) of the SARFAESI Act. Under Rule 9 01. it is prescribed that no sale of an immovable property under the Rules should take place before the Decision Date : 02-03-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3411/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
88	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs SANTOSH GUPTA AND ANR. ETC. – [2016] 9 S.C.R. 9852016 INSC 1157 Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,KURIAN JOSEPH & Kashmir Constitution. [Paras 41, 42 and 43][1029-C-D; 1030-F-H; 1031-A-CJ 2.1 Recovery of debts by banks has been held to fall within Entry 45 List I. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI ) is relatable to Entry 45 List and that any enactment E F G H 992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R. A made under the State List would have to give way to SARFAESI by virtue of the application of Article 246 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 24, 27][1018-B; 1020-E] Union of India v. Delhi High Court Decision Date : 16-12-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/12237/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
89	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ROBUST HOTELS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Vs EIH LIMITED & ORS. – [2016] 8 S.C.R. 4372016 INSC 1107 Judge : PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE,ASHOK BHUSHAN Enforcement of Security Interest ( SARFAESI ) Act, 2002 demanding amount due from BHEL. I 0. Proceeding under SARFAESI Act, 2002 proceeded and the hotel G asset of BHEL was transferred in favour of one Robust Hotels (P.) Ltd.(the appellant in C.A.Nos ….. of 2016 (arising out of SLP © No. ofany interim order. The Robust Hotels has purchased the hotel unit under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the property has been conveyed to the Robust Hotels free from any encumbrance. The proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 cannot be made subject matter of challenge before a Civil Court. Section 34 Decision Date : 07-12-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/11886/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
90	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs MUKESH JAIN & ANR. – [2016] 8 S.C.R. 4272016 INSC 1007 Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,ANIL R. DAVE the Court HELD: 1 Upon perusal of Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of.the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, ( SARFAESI Act), it is very clear that F no Civil Court is having jurisdiction to entertain any suit or G proceeding in respect of matter which a Debt Recovery · Tribunal or the appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the SARFAESI Act to determine the dispute. Further, the Civil Court has no right to issue any injunction in ,pursuance of any action taken under the SARFAESI Act or under the provisions of the 427 Decision Date : 08-11-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/210/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
91	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer AXIS BANK Vs SBS ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER – [2016] 2 S.C.R. 9202016 INSC 334 Judge : KURIAN JOSEPH,R.F. NARIMAN Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Any person aggrieved by the order of the DRT under Section 17 of the F SARFAESI Act, is entitled to prefer an appeal along with the prescribed fee within the permitted period of 30 days. For ‘preferring’ an appeal, a fee is proceedings known to law. The submission that the Bank has a lien on the pre-deposit made under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act in terms of Section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872 cannot be accepted. [Paras 22, 23] [934-B-H; 935-A] 1.3 Section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872 provides for retention of Decision Date : 22-04-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4379/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
92	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer PRATIBHA RAMESH PATEL Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2016] 2 S.C.R. 8962016 INSC 254 Judge : KURIAN JOSEPH,R.F. NARIMAN has brought Multi State Co-operative Society within the ambit of SARFAESI ACT, 2002 and the RDDBFI Act, 1993 and that to further declare that the (Amended) Act, 2012 as unconstitutional and void for it is beyond the legislative domain of the parliament to enact law concerning the enjoyment of the petitioner’s properties, which the Respondent Bank claims to be a secured asset at its hands and, in particular, from dispossessing the petitioner of her residential home under the purported powers under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002; (e) To declare that the notice Decision Date : 09-03-2016 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/35/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
93	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S MADRAS PETROCHEM LTD. & ANR Vs BIFR& ORS. – [2016] 11 S.C.R. 4192016 INSC 107 Judge : KURIAN JOSEPH,R.F. NARIMAN 11S.C.R.419 MIS MADRAS PETROCHEM LTD. & ANR v. BIFR& ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 614-615 of2016) JANUARY 29, 2016 (KURIAN JOSEPH AND R.F. NARIMAN, JJ.] Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI Act) – ss. 35, 37 and 41 – Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) ·Act, 1985 (SICA) – ss. 15; 22 and 32 – Whether the SARFAESI Act prevails over the SICA Act – Held: SARFAESI Act prevails over the SICA to the extent of inconsistency therewith – Where a secured creditor of a sick industrial Decision Date : 29-01-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/614/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
94	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer VISHAL N. KALSARIA Vs BANK OF INDIA & ORS. – [2016] 1 S.C.R. 4192016 INSC 76 Judge : AMITAVA ROY,V. GOPALA GOWDA – Whether the SARFAESI Act, by virtue of s. 35 thereof. would override the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent control Act, 1999 – Held: SARFAESI Act cannot mean to extend to each and every law enacted by the Central and State legislature – It can extend only to the laws operating in the same field- SARFAESI Act and the Rent Control Act, both operate in different fields – A tenant cannot be evicted under the provisions of SARFAESI Act as the same would amount to stultifying the statutory rights of the tenant provided under the Rent Control Act – A landlord cannot be permitted to do Decision Date : 20-01-2016 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/52/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
95	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION P. LTD. Vs M/S. HARYANACONCAST LIMITED &ANR. – [2015] 15 S.C.R. 1022015 INSC 947 Judge : VIKRAMAJIT SEN,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH Interest Act, 2002 – ss. 9, 13, 17 and 18 – Sale of secured asset by a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act- Whether can be controlled by company court either directly or through an official liquidator – Held: There is no lacuna or ambiguity in the SARFAESI Act so as D to borrow anything Companies Act – The required provisions of the Companies Act have been incorporated in the SARFAESI Act for harmonizing this Act with the Companies Act – Therefore, there is no reason to take recourse to any provisions of the Companies Act and permit E interference in the proceedings under Decision Date : 29-12-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3646/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
96	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SUMER BUILDERS PVT. LTD. Vs NARENDRA GORAN! – [2015] 10 S.C.R. 2202015 INSC 783 Judge : PRAFULLA C. PANT,DIPAK MISRA so appear, then the suit shall continue under leave granted under Clause 12.”s 18. Be it noted, in the said case suit was filed for specific D performance of the agreement which contemplated sale of property as has been described under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The issue Decision Date : 15-10-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4267/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
97	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BALESHWAR DAYAL JAISWAL Vs BANK OF INDIA & ORS. – [2015] 9 S.C.R. 12015 INSC 545 Judge : ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J.S. KHEHAR u/s. 18(1) of SARFAESI B Act, 2002, even though the provisions of s. 5 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act are inapplicable to such. proceedings – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Finan<jal Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – s. 18(1 ). • c Disposing of the appeals, Court HELD: 1. A bare perusal of Section 18(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 0 ( SARFAESI Act), makes it clear that the Appellate Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act has to dispose of an appeairin accordance with Decision Date : 05-08-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5924/2015 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
98	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MAHARAJI EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs SGS CONSTRUCTION & DEV. P. LTD. & ORS – [2015] 7 S.C.R. 922015 INSC 432 Judge : H.L. DATTU,ARUN MISHRA,S.A. BOBDE lnterestAct, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’). E 5. The Builder has filed objections on the strength of an agreement to sell dated 26.8.2010 entered with Trust which was initially unregistered for purchase of 63.45 acres of land comprised in property No.6, which includes comprised of 63.45 acres of land which was initially mortgaged by the Trust with HUDCO. Proceedings for E recovery of debt which seems to have presently amassed to more than Rs. 433 crores under the SARFAESI Act, are stated to be pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi. The property Decision Date : 15-05-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4494/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
99	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer EXCEL DEALCOMM PRIVATE LIMITED Vs ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED & ORS. – [2015] 4 S.C.R. 9482015 INSC 281 Judge : PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE,M.Y. EQBAL registered with the Reserve Bank H 952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A of India as a Company under Section 3 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ SARFAESI Act’). ARCIL took steps Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and took possession of the assets. B Allegedly the ARCIL entered into a Private Treaty Agreement dated 13.02.2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’) with the appellant Excel Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. {herein after referred to as ‘Excel’), for sale of the Decision Date : 01-04-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3272/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
100	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MRS. PRIYANKASRIVASTAVAANDANOTHER Vs STATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS – [2015] 4 S.C.R. 1082015 INSC 239 Judge : PRAFULLA C. PANT,DIPAK MISRA – SARFAESJ Act. G H Allowing the appeal the Court HELD: 1. When a borrower of the financial institution covered under the SARFAESI Act, invokes the jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and also there is a separate procedure under the Recovery of 108 PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ANR. President, neither the loan was taken, nor the default was made, nor any action under the SARFAESI Act was taken. However, the action under the SARFAESI Act was taken on the second time at the instance of appellant No.1. The devilish design of the respondent No.3 was E to harass the appellants with Decision Date : 19-03-2015 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/781/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed