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

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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more