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…!
Third Party Rights and Proceedings - Several sources clarify that third parties, including third-party purchasers or secured creditors, can be involved in proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and related laws. Remedy provisions under Section 17 of the NPA Act are available to both borrowers and third parties, allowing them to raise grievances and seek relief ["Indian Overseas Bank v. M/s. Sree Aravindh Steels Ltd. and Others - Madras"], ["M/S Krishna Oils Extractions Limited Through Shri Om Prakash Goel vs Bank Of India - Madhya Pradesh"].
Questioning Creditor Proceedings - The sources indicate that third parties or borrowers can challenge creditor proceedings, especially if they believe their rights are affected or if procedural irregularities occur. For instance, third-party purchasers or secured creditors can question the validity of proceedings or actions taken by secured creditors, such as sale or possession, through appropriate legal channels, including appeals or applications before tribunals or courts ["M/S Krishna Oils Extractions Limited Through Shri Om Prakash Goel vs Bank Of India - Madhya Pradesh"], ["CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"].
Notice and Hearing to Third Parties - It is generally held that at certain stages, especially under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the law does not mandate notice or hearing to borrowers or third parties, as the section is designed for the secured creditor to take possession or control of secured assets without such procedural requirements. However, third parties or borrowers may be notified or may approach authorities like the District Magistrate if they wish to contest or seek relief, particularly under Section 17 or during proceedings before tribunals ["VIJAYA BANK Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"].
Legal Challenges and Remedies - Third parties and borrowers can challenge proceedings through various legal avenues, including writ petitions, appeals, or applications under Sections 17 and 17A of the SARFAESI Act. They may seek to set aside sale proceedings, claim damages, or seek possession back, provided they follow due process and are properly impleaded in proceedings ["GAJANAN HIGHRISE P LTD vs UCO BANK - Calcutta"], ["ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"].
Conclusion - The legal framework recognizes third parties' rights to question or challenge creditor proceedings, particularly where procedural violations or irregularities are alleged. While certain procedural steps, like notice under Section 14, are not required for the creditor to initiate possession, third parties have remedies available under Sections 17 and 17A, and through judicial review, to contest proceedings affecting their interests ["Indian Overseas Bank v. M/s. Sree Aravindh Steels Ltd. and Others - Madras"], ["M/S Krishna Oils Extractions Limited Through Shri Om Prakash Goel vs Bank Of India - Madhya Pradesh"], ["CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"].
References:- ["Indian Overseas Bank v. M/s. Sree Aravindh Steels Ltd. and Others - Madras"]- ["M/S Krishna Oils Extractions Limited Through Shri Om Prakash Goel vs Bank Of India - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"]- ["CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"]- ["GAJANAN HIGHRISE P LTD vs UCO BANK - Calcutta"]- ["ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"]- ["VIJAYA BANK Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]
In the complex world of banking and finance in India, secured creditors often invoke the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act) to recover dues from defaulting borrowers. A common question arises: Whether a third party in Securitization application can question the creditor their proceedings against the borrower? This issue frequently surfaces when third parties claim interests in secured assets, such as tenants, purchasers, or other stakeholders. Understanding the limitations is crucial for anyone involved in such disputes.
This blog explores the legal framework, judicial interpretations, and practical remedies, drawing from key precedents. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Generally, a third party's ability to question or challenge proceedings initiated by a secured creditor against a borrower under the SARFAESI Act, including in Section 7 insolvency applications or Section 14 possession assistance, is limited. The Act primarily grants appeal rights to the borrower or directly affected parties like guarantors, but not to unrelated third parties claiming interests in secured assets. Balkrishna Rama Tarle Dead Thr LRS VS Phoenix ARC Private Limited - 2023 2 Supreme 273Axis Bank VS SBS Organics Private Limited - 2016 3 Supreme 162
The statutory scheme under Sections 13, 14, and 17 focuses on secured creditors and borrowers, with dispute resolution mechanisms tailored for them. Courts emphasize that third parties without a direct contractual nexus must seek alternative remedies. Axis Bank VS SBS Organics Private Limited - 2016 3 Supreme 162
Under Section 14, the District Magistrate (DM) or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) provides assistance to secured creditors for taking possession of assets after Section 13(4) measures. This role is purely ministerial—verifying procedural compliance, not adjudicating third-party rights. Balkrishna Rama Tarle Dead Thr LRS VS Phoenix ARC Private Limited - 2023 2 Supreme 273Axis Bank VS SBS Organics Private Limited - 2016 3 Supreme 162
The Supreme Court in cases like Balakrishna Rama Tarle has clarified: once all requirements under Section 14 are satisfied, the authority's duty is to assist in possession, not to decide disputes or rights of third parties. Axis Bank VS SBS Organics Private Limited - 2016 3 Supreme 162
From another judgment: At that stage, the CMM/DM is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor and/or between any other third party and the secured creditor with respect to the secured assets. Punjab Nation Bank vs Additional District Magistrate, Raisen - 2024 Supreme(MP) 782
Section 17 allows any person aggrieved by Section 13(4) measures to appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). However, courts interpret 'any person' narrowly—to borrowers, guarantors, or those with contractual rights, not unrelated third parties. Axis Bank VS SBS Organics Private Limited - 2016 3 Supreme 162Heir Of Deceased Maharaj Purshottamlalji Maharaj, Junagad: Ajanta Estate Agency, Jayshree Road, Junagad VS Collector Of Junagad District - 1986 0 Supreme(SC) 305
Third parties lacking a security agreement nexus cannot directly challenge enforcement; they are directed to DRT under Section 17 or civil courts. Balkrishna Rama Tarle Dead Thr LRS VS Phoenix ARC Private Limited - 2023 2 Supreme 273
Courts consistently hold that SARFAESI remedies are exclusive. Civil courts or third parties cannot interfere unless there's a clear procedural violation. Balkrishna Rama Tarle Dead Thr LRS VS Phoenix ARC Private Limited - 2023 2 Supreme 273Axis Bank VS SBS Organics Private Limited - 2016 3 Supreme 162
Another ruling reinforces: The District Magistrate does not assume any adjudicatory function while examining the application of the secured creditor under Section 14. Allahabad Bank VS District Magistrate, Ludhiana - 2021 Supreme(P&H) 1518
While direct questioning is restricted, exceptions exist:
For third-party purchasers: Pre-amended rules included them as 'parties,' but disputes are resolved via DRT, not enforcement stages. Tushar Kanti Karmakar vs Shilabati Hospital Private Limited - 2025 Supreme(Cal) 923
Instead of questioning creditor proceedings directly:
Secured creditors must adhere to timelines (e.g., 30-60 days under Section 14) to avoid challenges. Punjab Nation Bank vs Additional District Magistrate, Raisen - 2024 Supreme(MP) 782
| Scenario | Permitted Challenge? | Remedy ||----------|----------------------|--------|| Unrelated third party | No, at enforcement stage | Section 17 DRT or civil court Balkrishna Rama Tarle Dead Thr LRS VS Phoenix ARC Private Limited - 2023 2 Supreme 273 || Pre-existing tenant | Limited; no summary eviction | Protect tenancy rights Dena Bank VS Shri Sihor Nagarik Sahakari Bank Limited - 2008 Supreme(Guj) 79 || Guarantor/Contractual party | Yes | Section 17 appeal Axis Bank VS SBS Organics Private Limited - 2016 3 Supreme 162 || Procedural breach | Yes, exceptionally | DRT/High Court Balkrishna Rama Tarle Dead Thr LRS VS Phoenix ARC Private Limited - 2023 2 Supreme 273 |
Third parties typically cannot question secured creditor proceedings under SARFAESI during enforcement, especially Section 14 applications. The Act prioritizes swift recovery, relegating third-party claims to DRT or civil forums. Key takeaway: Establish a direct nexus or procedural flaw for viable challenges. Axis Bank VS SBS Organics Private Limited - 2016 3 Supreme 162Balkrishna Rama Tarle Dead Thr LRS VS Phoenix ARC Private Limited - 2023 2 Supreme 273
Always verify facts with professionals, as outcomes depend on specifics. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence to protect interests in secured assets.
References:1. Balkrishna Rama Tarle Dead Thr LRS VS Phoenix ARC Private Limited - 2023 2 Supreme 273: Ministerial role under Section 14.2. Axis Bank VS SBS Organics Private Limited - 2016 3 Supreme 162: Scope of Section 17 and third-party limits.3. Other cases as cited.
#SARFAESIAct, #ThirdPartyRights, #BankingLaw
Remedy provided under S.17 of the NPA Act is available to the borrower as well as the third party. ... 6. Remedy provided under S.17 is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the third party as well as to the borrower where all grievances can be raised. ... 7. ... This being a case of civil nature, the question that arose immediately in the mind of this Court is that whether the application under S.482 Cr.P.C. is maintainabl....
taken by the secured creditor" in Section 17(1) clearly indicates the appeal under Section 17 is available to the borrower only after losing possession of the property. ... of the secured creditor shall not confer any right under Section 17.” ... The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether: (a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) the petition reveals al....
At that stage, the CMM/DM is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor and/or between any other third party and the secured creditor with respect to the secured assets and the aggrieved party to be relegated to raise objections in the proceedings under a href ... The question, however, whether the creditor could maintain an application of possession unde....
The variables were and are the third party and borrower. 28. ... In the same vein, any third party purchasor can also be a party to, under the purview of the above two clauses. 27. Under the pre amended Rule 8(8), the expression 'parties' would have included both third parties and the borrower. ... The question therefore is whether there was any clear indication in Rule 8(8) (pre amendment) as to who are the parti....
Therefore, any security interest being of Secured Financial Creditor or third party Secured Creditor cannot be enforced. It cannot be said that a third-party security holder shall remain out of CIRP. A third party Secured Creditor cannot say that he is not bound by the plan. ... The prohibition from enforcement of any security interest by one or other creditor including Secured Financial Creditor ....
the said application cannot be rejected on the ground that the borrower is ready to pay the loan amount or not. ... on the ground that the borrowers who have noticed in that proceedings undertakes and inclined to repay the loan. ... By the present writ petition, the petitioner/Bank is questioning the order dated 16.01.2025, by which, the proceeding on the application under Section 14 of the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘t....
the said application cannot be rejected on the ground that the borrower is ready to pay the loan amount or not. ... on the ground that the borrowers who have noticed in that proceedings undertakes and inclined to repay the loan. ... By the present writ petition, the petitioner/Bank is questioning the order dated 16.01.2025, by which, the proceeding on the application under Section 14 of the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘t....
that the borrowers who have noticed in that proceedings undertakes to repay the loan. ... By the present writ petition, the petitioner/Bank is questioning the order dated 24/12/2024, by which, the application under Section 14 of the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act 2002’) has been rejected on the ground ... (D) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the power under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 to the District Magistrate is only to direc....
It is well settled that third party interests are created overnight and in very many cases those third parties take up the defence of being a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. It is these types of disputes which are sought to be avoided by Rule 8 read with Rule 9 of the 2002 Rules. ... It would also authorise the secured creditor to override terms of contract between the land lord and the tenant-a contract to which such secured creditor is not even a party. ... 27. ... when....
When the possession is taken by one party, other party also loses it. In the present case, adversial possession in being claimed by the secured creditor against the borrower. It is not possible that both will have possession over the secured assets. ... and, therefore, none can question any illegality committed by the secured creditor. ... This brings us to the second question raised by the parties which is when does the cause of action to file an Applicatio....
(3) Scope of powers of the District Magistrate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Securitization Act, 2002 ?" (1) Whether Civil Court would have jurisdiction to negate any right of the secured creditor under the Securitisation Act, 2002, qua the secured asset in a civil suit or proceedings instituted by the borrower/guarantor/any third party qua the secured asset? Having heard both the parties and on noticing that several writ petitions of such like disputes are regularly being filed by the secured creditors, seeking enforcement of their rights under Se....
(3) Scope of powers of the District Magistrate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act,2002? (1) Whether Civil Court would have jurisdiction to negate any right of the secured creditor under the Securitisation Act, 2002, qua the secured asset in a civil suit or proceedings instituted by the borrower/guarantor/any third party qua the secured asset? 8. Having heard both the parties and on noticing that several writ petitions of such like disputes are regularly being filed by the secured creditors, seeking enforcement of their rights under Se....
Therefore, in order to prevent any misuse, the Committee recommended that prior to including an assignee of a related party financial creditor within the CoC, the resolution professional should verify that the assignee is not a related party of the corporate debtor. In cases where it may be proved that a related party financial creditor had assigned or transferred its debts to a third party in bad faith or with a fraudulent intent to vitiate the proceedings under the Code, the assignee should be treated akin to a related party financial creditor under the first proviso to Section 2....
It is obvious that in such a case borrower or a guarantor is concerned with the entire debt payable to the secured creditor in respect of such application, the Court fees would be payable either under entry 1(a) or (b) of Rule 13 (2). He is aggrieved because he is the owner of the property totally unconcerned with the “debt” and yet his property is at peril. He is not at all concerned with the “amount of debt due” of for that matter with the “debt” as such. Apart from the borrower, a third party who is not a borrower may also be aggrieved by any measure taken by the secure creditor....
It is obvious that in such a case borrower or a guarantor is concerned with the entire debt payable to the secured creditor in respect of such application, the Court fees would be payable either under entry 1(a) or (b) of Rule 13 (2). He is aggrieved because he is the owner of the property totally unconcerned with the “debt” and yet his property is at peril. Apart from the borrower, a third party who is not a borrower may also be aggrieved by any measure taken by the secure creditor as in the present case, where the petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of the property in....
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
