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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more