Skip to main content

SARFAESI - What happens if secured asset was agricultural land - Madras HC

The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, (SARFAESI Act), 2002, is a self-contained code and has been enacted to enable banks and financial institutions (FIs) to recover the outstanding without approaching the courts and tribunals, the Madras High Court has said.

Prior to the Act, the banks were not empowered to take possession of securities to realise the debts. It was only under such circumstances that Parliament enacted the SARFAESI Act to enable banks and FIs to recover the loan without resorting to the time consuming legal proceedings, a division bench of justices S Rajeswaran and S Vaidyanathan said.

The bench was dismissing a writ petition from Silicon Valley Auto Components Private Limited in Maraimalai Nagar, which borrowed a huge sum from the Nandanam branch of Indian Bank. There remained a balance of Rs. 26 crore. The bank initiated recovery proceedings in February this year. Challenging the same, the firm filed the present petition. The contention of the petitioner was that the secured assets were agricultural lands and therefore they must be exempted from the purview of SARFAESI proceedings.

The bench said that the secured asset is situated in Neelankarai, which has become a very posh residential area in Chennai and a number of posh and giant residential projects have come up in and around it. In fact, the petitioner himself has constructed a huge bungalow with swimming-pool and a tennis court therein. “Therefore, when the area has developed in a great extent and became a posh residential area and when the bank resorted to take possession of the same, we do not find any justification on the part of the petitioner still to contend that the secured asset is an agricultural land,’’ the bench said and dismissed the petition.

It, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy provided under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal concerned within two weeks, if it is so advised.

Article referred: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/SARFAESI-Act-is-to-Recover-Dues/2014/08/24/article2395251.ece

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more