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

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

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