IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, (MADURAI BENCH)
R. MAHADEVAN, J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, JJ.
R. Subbiah - Petitioner
Versus
The Authorised Officer, ARM Branch, Canara Bank and Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(MD) No.26607 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD) No.20810 of 2022
Decided On : 25-11-2022
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, notice requirements, actions available to secured creditors, and the appeal process. The court also highlighted the non-maintainability of writ petitions against proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and private financial institutions, emphasizing the availability of alternative statutory remedies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a sale notice issued by a bank under the SARFAESI Act. The court considered the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and relevant case law in reaching its decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioner to pay 20% of the outstanding amount by a specified date and the remaining amount in six monthly installments, with a warning that the bank could proceed against the petitioner in case of default.
Issues: Challenging the sale notice under the SARFAESI Act, non-maintainability of writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings, and the availability of alternative statutory remedies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the availability of expeditious and effective remedies under the SARFAESI Act and highlighted the non-maintainability of writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings and private financial institutions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a directive for the petitioner to make specified payments by certain dates, with a warning of further action by the bank in case of default.
ORDER :
(R. Mahadevan, J.)
(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 impugned sale notice issued by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Ref. SARF/MELUR/3/2022 dated 29.10.2022 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently forbearing the respondents from in any manner proceeding with the sale of the Secured Assets of the petitioner which are hypothecated with the respondent bank without following due process of law.)
Challenging the sale notice dated 29.10.2022, issued by the second respondent – bank, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.
2. Heard Mr.B.Karuppasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Pethurajesh, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents – Bank.
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-
(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 is held as security for the debt:
Provided fur
Mardia Chemicals vs. Union of India reported in (2004) 4 SCC 311
ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Umakanta Mohapatra
State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd.
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon
Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra(2011) 2 SCC 782
Agarwal Tracom (P) Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank (2018) 1 SCC 626
C. Bright v. Distt. Collector (2021) 2 SCC 392
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon
Hindon Forge (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P.
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 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 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....
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....
Exhaustion of alternative remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, as emphasized by the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and supported by relevant Supreme Court....
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....
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.