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

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

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

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