Skip to main content

NCLAT applies SARFAESI Act to break deadlock in Insolvency Process

In Liquidator of Surana Power Limited vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, a deadlock was created by the refusal of the Respondent to release its charge of secured assets so that the Liquidator can sale the assets.

The Respondent won an arbitration award allowing lien on assets on which several other creditors were already holding charge. The Liquidator asked for direction from the NCLAT to break the deadlock.

The NCLAT observed that the Learned Adjudicating Authority has rejected the Application mainly on the ground that BHEL is a Secured Creditors, entitle to proceed under Section 52 to realize its Security Interest. The Appellant Liquidator cannot cause the sale of asset filing under Section 52 in the manner as specified under Section 53 of the Code unless the charge holder relinquishes the Security Interest. The Adjudicating Authority has held that the Respondent's lien has a preference over the charge created in favour of the remaining Secured Financial Creditors.

It is essential to point out that the Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate that all the Secured Creditors are on the same footing regardless of the mode of creation of charge.

t is pertinent to mention that the Respondent is also a Secured Creditor at par with the remaining ten other Secured Creditors. Enforcement of security interest is governed by the SEC 13 of the SARFAESI Act. As per terms of Section 13(9) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 any steps about the realization of assets by the Secured Creditors requires confirmation from the Creditors having at least 60% of the value of total debt.

In the present case, the Secured Creditors which 73.76% in value have already relinquished the Security Interest into the liquidation estate. Thus, it would be prejudicial to stall the liquidation process at the instance of a single creditor having only 26.24% share (in value), in the secured assets. The Respondent does not hold a superior charge from the rest of the Secured financial creditors in the secured Assets. The above provision of SARFAESI Act will be applicable in this case to end this deadlock, and the decision of 73.76% of majority Secured Creditors, who have relinquished the Security Interest shall also be binding on the dissenting secured creditors, i.e. Respondent.

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