Corporate Law : SARFAESI Act of 2002 addresses India's non-performing assets. Section 13 empowers secured creditors to enforce security interests ...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the Madras High Court ruling on allowing Input Tax Credit without physical invoices, emphasizing electronic records for GS...
Fema / RBI : Get answers to common queries about displaying secured assets under SARFAESI Act 2002. Learn about asset disclosure, updates, and ...
Corporate Law : Read how Bombay High Court's recent judgment issued crucial directives for swift processing of creditors' applications under SARFA...
Corporate Law : Article examining the two approaches Financial Institutions in India use for vehicle seizure: traditional vs. SARFAESI methods. Ex...
Finance : There is no mention of the term re-sealing of property in SARFAESI Act, 2022 and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy (RDB) Act, 1...
Corporate Law : The Central Govt has initiated formulation of laws to secure prudential banking & help effect a culture of credit discipline i...
Fema / RBI : The Gross Advances of Scheduled Commercial Banks (SCBs) increased from Rs.25,03,431 crore as on 31.3.2008 to Rs. 68,75,748 crore...
Fema / RBI : It is widely felt that the spectre of high-value economic offenders absconding from India to defy the legal process seriously unde...
Corporate Law : The Union Cabinet today approved introduction of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Bill,...
Corporate Law : Legal analysis of SARFAESI Act: Exemption from stamp duty for documents favoring asset reconstruction. Case: Assets Care Vs Ankit ...
Corporate Law : Kerala High Court rules that a secured creditor cannot proceed under SARFAESI Act if a civil suit for recovery has been dismissed ...
Corporate Law : Kerala High Court intervenes in coercive recovery proceedings against petitioners for financial advance default, granting time for...
Corporate Law : In Govind Kumar Sharma & Anr Vs Bank of Baroda case, Supreme Court sets aside auction sale under SARFAESI Act due to procedural la...
Goods and Services Tax : Bombay High Court held that MVAT Authorities would not have priority in the recourse to the assets that are secured in favour of t...
Fema / RBI : Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued Circular RBI/2023-24/63 on September 25, 2023, addressing the display of information relate...
Finance : Central Government hereby specifies such housing financial companies registered under sub-section (5) of section 29A of the Nation...
Corporate Law : Government notifies Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Central Registry) ...
Fema / RBI : Sale notice for sale of movable properties- E-Auction Sale Notice for Sale of Movable Assets under the Securitisation and Reconstr...
Corporate Law : Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Financ...
After the constitution of Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRT) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRAT) under The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and after conferring the authority to entertain appeals from the aggrieved persons under section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, Banks have gained an upper-hand in the course of recovery of their dues. It is hard to see a Bank now going to Civil Court or facing a Civil Proceeding in-respect of recovery of their dues.
Under the provisions of ‘Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ in short), the Bank can invoke the process of recovery of money on its own without any adjudicatory process. The Banks can proceed with the enforcement of ‘security’ under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. If any borrower or any person is aggrieved with the action initiated by the Bank under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002, then, he can approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under section 17 of the Act by paying the prescribed fee.
Company Law Board exercises very important functions under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 providing relief to the shareholders against ‘oppression and mis-management’ in the Company. When a group of shareholders are oppressed in any company or the company is mis-managed causing loss to the interests of the shareholders, shareholders very frequently exercise the option of approaching the Company Law Board under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 if they are qualified to do so under section 399.
It is always welcome to enable the Banks to recover their dues using the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is known that it is very difficult for the Banks to approach Civil Court asking for a decree and getting that decree executed. With the intention of enabling the Banks to reduce their NPAs through faster recovery of dues, ‘The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993’ was enacted.
As per Sub-section (2), the ISARC becomes a lender of the financial assets in place of SIDBI and thus, has all the rights of SIDBI in relation to the financial assets which were acquired by it. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no financial facility was extended by SIDBI to ISARC and so the cheques in question would not be financial assets within Sub-section (2), is highly misplaced. SIDBI had advanced certain loans to the petitioners,
It would be clueless for the professionals at times in answering the queries of the borrowers facing proceedings under ‘The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002’. If the Bank initiates proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002, then, in view of section 34, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or legal proceeding in respect of the same subject matter.
Recovery of its due has been a hectic exercise for the Banks in the absence of a special legislation. ‘Non-performing Assets’ were growing and a need was felt to reduce the ‘Non-performing Assets’ of the Banks drastically. As the recovery through Courts was a difficult exercise for the Banks, initially, a special legislation called ‘The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993’ was enacted creating a Special Tribunal called ‘Debt Recovery Tribunal’.
The Union Cabinet today approved introduction of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2011 in the next session of Parliament. The proposed amendments would enable banks to improve their operational efficiency, deploy more funds for credit disbursement to retail investors, home loan borrowers, etc. without fearing for recovery, thus bringing about equity. Further, mandatory registration of subsisting security interest (equitable mortgages) would promote innovation in credit information.
Many argue that the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 are draconian in nature. Borrowers do often refer to their good relations with the Bank for a considerable time and they express angst at the Bank’s action under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The borrowers do often question as to why the Bank should not consider the reputation of the customer, understand the temporary difficulties and grant time rather proceeding against the ‘Secured Asset’ using the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 mechanically.
It may be true that Banks do face numerous difficulties in recovering the dues despite having ‘security’. But, there can not be any difficulty for the Banks in recovering their dues under SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is alleged that even the Debt Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunal do favour Banks and keep on insisting on making substantial payment to the Bank without looking into the merits or demerits in the Appeal filed by the borrower under the Act. According to me, earlier, the High Courts used to discourage the borrowers filing Writ Petitions and Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 either during the pendency of the Appeal before the Tribunal or before filing the Appeal.
