SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 3951

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.MAHADEVAN, J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, JJ.
A.Vetharaj – Appellant
Versus
The Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai – Respondent
W.P.(MD) No.26564 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD) No.20754 of 2022
Decided on : 25-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.A.Navaskhan

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 exhaust the remedies available under the Act.

Headnote:

SARFAESI Act - Enforcement of Security Interest - Sections 13, 14, 17, 18 - The court discussed the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, particularly Sections 13, 14, 17, and 18, and their interpretation in the context of the enforcement of security interest by banks or financial institutions in case of default in repayment of secured debt. The court highlighted the rights of the borrower against such enforcement and the availability of expeditious and effective remedies under the SARFAESI Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the possession notice issued by the second respondent, a Housing Finance Company, under the SARFAESI Act. The court considered the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the writ petition was not maintainable against proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, and the petitioner was directed to pay 25% of the outstanding amount by a specified date and the remaining amount in six equated monthly installments.

Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 against proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable against the actions of the Housing Finance Company under the SARFAESI Act, and the petitioner was directed to follow the remedies available under the Act.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to make specified payments within a stipulated time, and no coercive action was to be taken by the second respondent until the payments were made.

ORDER :

R.MAHADEVAN, J.

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned possession notice issued by the second respondent dated 11.10.2022 and quash the same as illegal and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court.

Challenging the possession notice dated 11.10.2022, issued by the second respondent – Housing Finance Company, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

2. Heard Mr.A.Navaskhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the nature of the order proposed to be passed in this writ petition, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

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 is held as security for the debt:

Provided further that where the management of whole, of the business or part of the business is severable, the secured creditor shall take over the management of such busine

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top