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

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

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.
Post a Comment
Read more