BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. MAHADEVAN, J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, JJ.
Anbu - Appellant
Versus
The Authorised Officer, Fullerton India Home Finance Company Limited, Chennai & Another - Respondent
W.P.(MD) No. 22684 of 2022 & W.M.P(MD) Nos. 16839 & 16842 of 2022
Decided On : 27-09-2022
SARFAESI Act - Enforcement of Security Interest - Section 13, Section 14, Section 17, Section 18 - The court discussed the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, including the enforcement of security interest, the rights of the borrower, the appeal process, and the non-maintainability of writ petitions against private financial institutions under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an auction sale notice issued by a finance company, seeking to quash the proceedings and regain possession of the property. The court considered the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the decisions of higher courts in this regard.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioner to make a partial payment by a specified date and the remaining outstanding amount within four months, allowing the finance company to proceed with the sale proceedings but not to confirm the sale. Failure to comply would result in the confirmation of the sale by the finance company.
Issues: Challenging the auction sale notice, enforcement of security interest, availability of expeditious remedies under the SARFAESI Act, and the non-maintainability of writ petitions against private financial institutions under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the rights of the borrower, the appeal process, and the non-maintainability of writ petitions against private financial institutions under the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a directive for partial payment by a specified date and the remaining outstanding amount within four months, allowing the finance company to proceed with the sale proceedings but not to confirm the sale.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Auction sale notice dated 09.09.2022 issued by the respondent finance company and all other consequential proceedings are illegal and quash the same and consequently hand over the possession of the loan schedule property to the petitioner which was already taken by the respondent on 19.05.2022.)
R. Mahadevan, J.
1. Challenging the impugned Auction sale notice dated 09.09.2022, issued by the respondent – Finance Company, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.
2. Heard Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Vellaichamy, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. Though there is availability of expeditious and effective remedies under the SARFAESI Act, this writ petition has been filed, since the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, is not functional. Before going into the issue raised in this writ petition, we deem it fit to consider the following sequence of the provisions under the SARFAESI Act and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in this regard, which will make one understand about the enforcement of security interest by the Banks or financial institutions in case of default in repayment of secured debt, vice versa the rights of the borrower against such enforcement.
4. Section 13 of the Act, which deals with enforcement of security interest, states that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 69 or 69A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the court's intervention, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
5. Section 13(2) of the Act provides that when a borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor, makes any default in repayment of secured debt, and his account in respect of such debt is classified as nonperforming asset, then the secured creditor may require the borrower, by notice in writing, to discharge his liabilities within sixty days from the date of the notice, failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights given in Section 13(4) of the Act.
6. Section 13(3) of the Act provides that the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower as also the details of the secured assets intended to be enforced by the bank. Section 13(3-A) of the Act was inserted by Act 30 of 2004 after the decision of this Court in Mardia Chemicals vs. Union of India reported in (2004) 4 SCC 311 and provides for a last opportunity for the borrower to make a representation to the secured creditor against the classification of his account as a non-performing asset. The secured creditor is required to consider the representation of the borrowers, and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that the representation is not tenable or acceptable, then he must communicate, within one week of the receipt of the communication by the borrower, the reasons for rejecting the same.
7. Section 13(4) of the Act provides that if the borrower fails to discharge his liability within the period specified in Section 13(2), then the secured creditor, may take recourse to any of the following actions, to recover his debt, namely-
"(a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset;
(b) take over the management of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset: Provided that the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale shall be exercised only where the substantial part of the business of the borrower i
The SARFAESI Act provisions, including the enforcement of security interest, the rights of the borrower, the appeal process, and the non-maintainability of writ petitions against private financial in....
The SARFAESI Act provides for the enforcement of security interest by secured creditors and the availability of alternative statutory remedies, emphasizing the non-maintainability of writ petitions a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the non-maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 against proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, and the requirement for the petitioner to ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the relevant provisions under the SARFAESI Act, the availability of expeditious and effective remedies, and the non-maintainab....
The court emphasized the legislative intent to minimize judicial intervention until the stage of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and highlighted the availability of statutory remedies under the Act, h....
Writ petitions under Article 226 not maintainable against private scheduled banks' SARFAESI actions; borrowers must exhaust Section 17 remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal; High Courts cannot direct....
The court established that the right of redemption under the SARFAESI Act is extinguished upon the issuance of a sale certificate, and timely challenge to bank actions is essential.
Failure to comply with the provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the availability of an alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal rendered the writ petition not mainta....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.