Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Pushpendra Dubey.
For the Respondents: Ankit Agrawal, Anupam Bhatt.

Key Points: - The SARFAESI Act has overriding effect over other laws, with Section 35 stating this, and Section 37 enabling its provisions to operate in addition to other laws; AC Act can be invoked in addition to SARFAESI remedies (!) (!) (!) . - The court held that invoking Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by a financial institution is within the law’s parameters, even when arbitration is invoked and a Securitization Application is pending; non-speaking order by the District Magistrate is not a ground to interfere given the legality of Section 14 invocation (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The matter references a Transcore v. Union of India principle that SARFAESI remedies are in addition to arbitration avenues, not a mere election of remedies, supporting concurrent use of SARFAESI and Arbitration Act remedies (!) . - The petitioner’s challenge under Article 226 was dismissed with liberty to raise issues in the pending Securitization Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal; interim orders were vacated; no costs (!) (!) . - The decision reiterates that the availability of AC Act remedies does not preclude SARFAESI actions, and that overlapping remedies can be pursued simultaneously (!) (!) (!) .

What is the effect of Section 35 and 37 of the SARFAESI Act on overriding other laws and the availability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the context of Section 14 proceedings?

What is the propriety of invoking Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act when arbitration and a Securitization Application are pending, and whether the absence of a speaking order invalidates or affects the legality of the Section 14 invocation?

What are the rights of a financial institution to invoke both the Arbitration Act and SARFAESI remedies concurrently, and is the election of remedies required or permissible under the cited authorities?