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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more