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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more