Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Section 13(2) SARFAESI Notice can be Challenged Only in DRT - The legal framework under the SARFAESI Act clearly stipulates that notices issued under Section 13(2), which serve as a prerequisite for initiating measures under Section 13(4), are to be challenged exclusively before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Multiple judgments confirm that any objection or challenge to such notices must be filed within the statutory remedy provided by Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, not through writ petitions in High Courts or Civil Courts ["Ess Ell Embroidery VS Bank of India - Punjab and Haryana"], ["M. Sons Gems N. Jjewellery Private Limited VS Reserve Bank of India - Delhi"], ["Ram Ashish Singh Son of Shri Kamla Singh VS Central Bank of India - Patna"].
Judicial Consistency on the Exclusive Jurisdiction of DRT - Courts have consistently held that the remedy for challenging actions under Sections 13(4), including possession and sale measures, lies within the DRT's jurisdiction. Writ petitions challenging notices under Section 13(2) are generally dismissed on the grounds that the statutory remedy under Section 17 is exclusive and effective for such disputes ["Ess Ell Embroidery VS Bank of India - Punjab and Haryana"], ["M. Sons Gems N. Jjewellery Private Limited VS Reserve Bank of India - Delhi"].
Exceptions and Limitations - While some cases involved challenges on procedural grounds or violations of principles of natural justice, the courts have emphasized that the primary and intended forum for challenging Section 13(2) notices is the DRT. Writ petitions are not the appropriate remedy for contesting the validity of such notices unless there is a violation of fundamental rights or procedural irregularities that cannot be remedied within the statutory scheme ["Ess Ell Embroidery VS Bank of India - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Kashmiri Begum VS State Of West Bengal - Calcutta"].
Main Insights - The consistent judicial view underscores that Section 13(2) notices are to be challenged only before the DRT, and any attempt to bypass this remedy through writ petitions is generally not entertained. The SARFAESI Act's scheme consolidates jurisdiction within the DRT for disputes arising from measures under Section 13, reinforcing the Act's intent to provide a specialized forum for such matters.
Analysis and Conclusion:The legal consensus from various judgments confirms that Section 13(2) SARFAESI notices can be challenged only in the DRT, and not in High Courts or civil courts. This ensures a specialized, speedy resolution mechanism for disputes related to securitization and enforcement measures, maintaining the integrity of the statutory framework. Writ petitions challenging such notices are typically dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, emphasizing the exclusivity of the DRT as the forum for such challenges.
Imagine receiving a demand notice from your bank under of the . It demands repayment of dues, threatening enforcement measures like asset takeover. Your immediate thought: Can I challenge this notice? And where— or ?
This is a common dilemma for borrowers facing . The key question is: Can a notice under of the SARFAESI Act be questioned before the DRT? Generally, yes—the SARFAESI Act's statutory scheme and judicial interpretations direct such challenges exclusively to the DRT, barring civil courts. This post breaks down the legal framework, key rulings, and practical steps, drawing from authoritative sources. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The SARFAESI Act empowers (like banks) to recover dues without court intervention, streamlining the process. requires the creditor to issue a demand notice specifying the dues and a 60-day repayment window. If unmet, the creditor can take measures under , such as possession of secured assets.
The Act's purpose is to expedite recovery while minimizing delays: The SARFAESI Act was enacted to streamline and expedite the enforcement of security interests by , minimizing judicial intervention . Objections to this notice must follow the Act's procedure—first to the creditor under , then escalation to the DRT if needed.
Judicial consensus holds that challenges to notices are maintainable only before the DRT. Civil courts lack jurisdiction, as per , which bars them from matters within the DRT's purview .
This framework ensures specialized handling: The legislative intent and scheme of the SARFAESI Act aim to restrict the challenge to the DRT, which is a specialized tribunal, and exclude civil courts from jurisdiction over these issues .
Practical implication: Once a notice under is issued, the borrower’s recourse is to approach the DRT under if they wish to challenge the measures taken thereafter. However, challenging the validity of the notice itself must be done through the DRT .
Other rulings reinforce DRT exclusivity while highlighting pitfalls:
Exceptions are rare; no documents suggest bypassing DRT for challenges. Procedural irregularities don't invalidate unless substantial prejudice is shown: procedural irregularities or objections to demand notices do not invalidate the proceedings unless substantial prejudice is shown .
Courts emphasize: Borrowers or concerned parties should file their challenge to a notice directly before the DRT, following the prescribed procedure .
In summary, a notice under of the SARFAESI Act can and should be questioned before the DRT, not civil courts. This upholds the Act's efficient recovery mechanism while providing borrowers a forum. Key takeaways:- DRT has exclusive jurisdiction .- Follow statutory sequence to avoid dismissal.- Judicial precedents bar parallel remedies.
Stay informed, act swiftly, and seek professional guidance. For tailored advice, contact a SARFAESI specialist.
#SARFAESIAct, #DRT, #Section132Notice
(A) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 13(2) and 13(3A ... ) - Writ petition challenging rejection of objections filed under Section 13(3A) - Petitioners claimed violation of RBI guidelines ... Learned DRT disposed of the matter while setting aside notice under Section 13(#HL_S....
13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. ... Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Section ... 13(8) and did not agree to clear entire dues – High Court has materially erred in allowing writ petition – Respondent No. 1 and/ ... The Bank attached the properties of the borrower under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Against the measures ....
A title suit bearing No. 595 of 2017 was filed against the declaration of NPA and the bank issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, which was replied to. ... Hence, while allowing the review application, the DRT also declared all actions initiated under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act; for reason of suppression o....
A title suit bearing No. 595 of 2017 was filed against the declaration of NPA and the bank issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, which was replied to. ... Hence, while allowing the review application, the DRT also declared all actions initiated under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act; for reason of suppression o....
The court highlighted the interpretation of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act and its application in the case. ... Suppression of Facts - Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act - Section 19 of RBD Act, Section 13(2) and 13(4) of SARFESI Act - ... The respondent no. 1-Bank also issued a notice to the petitioner on 17.12.2018 under Section 13(2) of the #HL....
It was submitted that in view of the decision of the Division Bench in the aforesaid case, the action / recourse under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act is consequential upon the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. ... (iv) Notice under Section 13(#HL_S....
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Section ... 13(4), 14 – Appellant had approached writ court claiming herself to be wife of borrower and challenging memo of bank relating to ... During the course of hearing before this Court learned counsel for the bank has also supplied another copy of the notice under Section 13(2) o....
13(2), (3A), (4), 14 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 14 and 31 - Wilful defaulter - Proceedings for recovery - ... And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section ... The Respondent No. 3 Bank, recalled the entire Loan Amount vide a Demand Notice dated 25.04.2019 under S.13(2) of the ("SARF....
Under sub-section (2) of Section 13 it is incumbent upon the secured creditor to serve 60 days' notice before proceeding to take any of the measures as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. ... The OTS proposal of the Petitioners was rejected by RARC and the RARC issued a notice under Section #HL_S....
SARFAESI Act - Property Dispute - Section 17 - Section 13(4) - Section 34 - DRT's Jurisdiction - Civil Court's ... The suit for partition was closed and the 2nd respondent relegated to the remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT. 10. Essentially when measures are taken under the SARFAESI Act, it can only be challenged before the DRT under Section ....
As a short circuiting procedure, without even intimating the firm or its partners, the respondent/ complainant filled up the cheque in question, which has been given to the borrower at the time of loan processing fee and initiated the prosecution. A stay was granted subject to the payment of Rs.25 lakhs and the same was also complied. Possession notice issued under SARFAESI Act has also been challenged before DRT.
The principal ground was that the possession notice was not given to the borrower and it was not published in the newspaper. The DRT expressly observed that the purported notice dated 31.03.2011 was not a possession notice within the meaning of section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.
This appeal is however being allowed on the legal point alone discussed already. 7. No doubt, the DRT had also concluded that notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was not served upon the borrowers/guarantors but I am not going into more details of this aspect of the matter also since this appeal deserves to be allowed on the short ground that the S.A. itself was premature when it was filed because the respondents had not been so far deprived of their possession of the' ....
DRAT allowed the Appeal of IFCI and dismissed the SA filed by BCHL on 10 September 2014. On 31 March 2014, DRT set aside Section 13(2) notice dated 26 March 2013 inter alia on the ground of noncompliance of Section 13(3A), that the Demand Notice issued jointly for agricultural land and otherwise, is against the provisions of SARFAESI Act. On 9 January 2014, IFCI published 2nd Sale Notice for sale of property on 10 February 2014, fixing reserve price of Rs.403 crores.
It appears that the first respondent had questioned the correctness of the calculation of the amount claimed by the third respondent as due, amongst others, for the reason the interest has been calculated on the total amount of loan sanctioned which was not fully disbursed. As noted earlier, one of the grievances raised by the first respondent in the SA filed before the DRT was that the representation made in response to notice under Section 13(2) SARFAESI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
