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
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-
(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
C. Bright v. Distt. Collector (2021) 2 SCC 392
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd.
Hindon Forge (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P.
ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Umakanta Mohapatra
Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra(2011) 2 SCC 782
Mardia Chemicals vs. Union of India reported in (2004) 4 SCC 311
Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir
Praga Tools Corpn. v. C.A. Manual
State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.
Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2003) 3 SCC 524 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 762
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 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 consideration of the relevant provisions under the SARFAESI Act, the availability of expeditious and effective remedies, and the non-maintainab....
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....
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....
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.