Skip to main content

Sarfaesi proceedings against personal guarantors can proceed even after moratorium

Cause Title : Mr. Latif Yusuf Manikkoth vs Bank of Baroda, Writ Petition (L) No. 9116 Of 2023, Bombay  High Court

Date of Judgment/Order : 20/07/2023

Corum : G. S. Kulkarni & Rajesh S. Patil, JJ.

Citied: 

  1. M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank1 (Para No. 11)
  2. Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore Vs. Mathew K.C.2 (Para Nos. 4, 11)
  3. Phoenix ARC Private Ltd. Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidhya Mandir3 (Para Nos. 7, 8, 9 & 13.2)
  4. Surinder Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India4 (Para No. 7)
  5. State of Bank India Vs. Ramakrishnan5 (Para Nos. 5.8)
  6. Kotak Mahindra Bank Vs. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. 6 (Para Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)

Background

The Petitioner is personal guarantor against loan sanctioned by the Bank in favour of One Alaska Creations Pvt. Ltd. The Respondent No. 4 was the supplier of footwear to the borrower. When the borrower failed to pay their dues, the Respondent No. 4 filed an application under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code which was admitted and moratorium was declared. Meanwhile as the account of the borrower had turned NPA, the Bank filed a Securitisation Application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Respondent No.5/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order appointing Respondent No.6, the Assistant Registrar, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as Court Commissioner to take possession of the Secured Asset.

The Borrower and the Petitioner filed series of applications against the actions taken by the Bank and finally this writ petition. The primary objection filed by the petitioner was that the borrower being an MSME the relationship between the Borrower and the Bank would be governed by the provisions of MSMED Act being the later law and the last legislation, would override the earlier law in respect of adjudicating upon the relationship between the Borrower and the Bank and that the Bank cannot be proceed before multiple forums based on the very same cause of action between the very same parties in terms of Sections 34, 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Judgment

The High Court observed that the Petitioner had approached multiple forums including the High Court on earlier occasions asking for the same relief and has not succeed. Further, the Petitioner has not disputed Borrower having availed the Loan Amount or charge being created over the Secured Assets, but the Petitioner has challenged the Legal Steps taken by the Respondent Bank under the provision of the SARFAESI.

The Petitioner since the initiation of the proceedings under SARFAESI by the respondent No.3, has neither objected to the Demand Notice dated 25.04.2019 nor has he and or Borrrower approached the Respondent Bank, with a proposal to restructure or for the settlement of the due to the Borrower.

By Order dated 11.09.2019, the NCLT has declared a moratorium against the action being taken against the Borrower, including the SARFAESI proceedings. However, the Secured Asset is owned by the Petitioner/Guarantor. 

The High Court held that the Respondent No.3 /Bank can proceed against the Mortgaged Property of Personal Guarantor as per S.13(11) of the SARFAESI. The issue is already covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. V. Ramakrishan & Anr. (2018) 17 SCC 394, which holds that S. 14 and S.31 of the IBC does not bar initiation and continuation of the SARFAESI proceedings against the Guarantor. As such, the bank has not violated the moratorium as ordered by the NCLT, in initiating SARFAESI Proceedings against Petitioner / Guarantor.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more