SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, JJ.
M/S HINDON FORGE PVT. LTD. & ANR. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GHAZIABAD & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10873 OF 2018 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO.5895 OF 2018] WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10874 OF 2018 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO.12841 OF 2018]
Decided On : 01-11-2018
(2004) 4 SCC 311 – Relied upon
(2013) 9 SCC 620 – Referred
(b) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 – Section 13(4)(a) – Contention that it should be read in the light of sub-clauses (b) and (c) – Incorrect – Similarly, section 13(4)(a) cannot be read in the light of sections 14 and 15. (Para 14, 15)
(c) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 – Section 17(3) – Restoration of possession to borrower – Only one of the reliefs – Can only happen in case of creditor taking actual possession – Being one of the reliefs does not mean that restoration of possession should be ordered in every case. (Para 16)
(d) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 – Section 17 – Borrower can also approach the Tribunal if measures taken u/s 13 are not in conformity with provisions of the Act. (Para 17)
(e) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 – Section 13 r/w Rule 8, Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – Taking over possession – If no resistance faced after notice u/rule 8(1), authorized officer proceeds u/rule 8(2) – In case of resistance creditor proceeds u/s 14 – Thirdly, creditor directly approaching Magistrate u/s 14 – Magistrate in turn, if satisfied, appoints an officer and proceeds u/rule 8(2). (Para 21, 22)
(2017) 4 SCC 735 – Relied upon
(2013) 9 SCC 620 – Referred
(2008) 1 SCC 125 – Distinguished
(f) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 – Section 13(6) – Taking over of constructive or physical possession – secured creditor may, by lease, sale or assignment, vest in the lessee or purchaser all rights in the secured asset as if the transfer had been made by the original owner of such secured asset. (Para 24)
AIR 2018 SC 3063 – Referred
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – Rule 8(1) and 8(2) refer to constructive possession whereas rule 8(3) refers to physical possession – Held, borrower/debtor can approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of (e) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 at the stage of the possession notice referred to in rule 8(1) and 8(2). (Para 25)
Facts of the case:
The question arising in this appeal is whether an application under section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, at the instance of a borrower, is maintainable even before physical or actual possession of secured assets is taken by banks/financial institutions in exercise of their powers under section 13(4) of the Act read with rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
Finding of the Court:
Borrower can file application u/s 17 even after taking all measures u/s 13(4) and before the date of sale auction.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
R.F. NARIMAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These matters come to us from a Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 06.02.2018. By an order of reference dated 19.09.2017, a learned Single Judge noticed divergent opinions expressed by two different Benches of the Allahabad High Court on the question whether an application under section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “SARFAESI Act” or the “Act”), at the instance of a borrower, is maintainable even before physical or actual possession of secured assets is taken by banks/financial institutions in exercise of their powers under section 13(4) of the Act read with rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “2002 Rules”). After discussing the various provisions of the Act, the 2002 Rules and judgments of the Supreme Court, the Full Bench summarised the true legal position according to it as follows:
“29. The upshot of legal position that emerges from the judgments of the Supreme Court, insofar as the question referred to for our consideration is concerned, briefly stated, is as under:
(a) The remedy of an application under Section 17(1) is available only after the measures under Section 13(4) have been taken by the Bank/FIs against the borrower.
(b) The issue of notice under Section 13(2) to the borrower and communication contemplated by Section 13(3-A) stating that his representation/objection is not acceptable or tenable, does not attract the application of principles of natural justice. In other words, no recourse to an application under Section 17(1), at that stage, is available/maintainable.
(c) The borrower/person against whom measures under Section 13(4) of the Act are likely to be taken, cannot be denied to know the reason why his application or objections have not been accepted, as a fulfilment of the requirement of reasonableness and fairness in dealing with the same.
(d) One of the reasons for providing procedure under Section 13(4) read with Rule 8 for taking possession is that the borrower should have a clear notice before the date and time of sale/transfer of the secured assets, in order to enable him to tender the dues of the secured creditor with all other charges or to take a remedy under Section 17, at appropriate stage.
(e) The time of 60 days is provided after the “measures” under Section 13(4) have been taken so as to enable the borrower to approach DRT and in such an eventuality, the DRT shall have a jurisdiction to pass any order/interim order, may be subject to conditions, on the application under Section 17(1) of the Act.
(f) The scheme of relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules shows that the Bank/FIs have been conferred with powers to take physical (actual) possession of the secured assets without interference of the Court and the only remedy open to the borrower is to approach DRT challenging such an action/measure and seeking appropriate relief, including restoration of possession, even after transfer of the secured assets by way of sale/lease, on the ground that the procedure for taking possession or dispossessing the borrower was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act/Rules.
(g) If the dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by them are tendered to them (secured creditors) before the date fixed for sale or transfer, the assets shall not be sold or transferred and in such an eventuality, possession can also be restored to the borrower.
(h) If the possession is taken before confirmation of sale, it cannot be stated that the right of the borrower to get the dispute adjudicated upon is defeated. The borrower's right to get back possession even after the sale remains intact or stands recognised under the scheme of the provisions of
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.