Back
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
Satpal Singh Kohli – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties on application CM APPL. 1648/2023 seeking a vacation of the stay order dated 19.09.2022.
2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-bank states that, the instant petition is not maintainable against an order declaring the petitioner a Non- Performing Asset (in short, `NPA'). He submits that on the first date of hearing i.e., on 19.09.2022, this court granted an ex-parte stay restraining the respondent-bank from proceeding further with the declaration of the petitioners' assets as NPA, which were already classified as NPA on 29.07.2022. According to him, after taking steps as per Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, `the SARFAESI Act, 2002'), the further course of action is provided under the statute itself, and the petitioner was required to approach the concerned bank, making the representation or raising a grievance that was required to be considered by the respondent- bank. He states the petitioner cannot be allowed to halt the proceedings at the stage of section 13(3) of the SARFAESI Ac
The High Court should not adjudicate on the classification of NPA, and recovery proceedings should not be halted by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Borrowers have remedies under Section 13(3A) and Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to challenge NPA classification and appeal actions taken by the bank.
Classification of an account as NPA under SARFAESI Act is not subject to judicial review and requires the borrower to seek recourse through statutory appeal under Section 17.
The classification of loan accounts as NPAs and the subsequent actions taken by the bank are not justiciable at the writ stage, and the petitioners should avail the remedy under Section 17 of the SAR....
The classification of a borrower's account as NPA under the SARFAESI Act is not justiciable in writ jurisdiction until measures under section 13(4) are invoked, necessitating the exhaustion of statut....
The statutory scheme of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act, 2002) does not provide for a legal remedy until the Section 13(4....
The legislative intent to prevent judicial or quasi-judicial intervention at the stage of issuance of demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.
Civil courts lack jurisdiction over matters already proceeding under SARFAESI Act, reaffirming that disputes on NPA classifications must be resolved within DRT as per Sections 17 and 34 of the Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
