Corporate Law : The Supreme Court held that borrowers lose their statutory right of redemption once a valid auction notice is published under Sect...
Finance : The article explores how the SARFAESI Act empowers banks to recover dues efficiently while highlighting the procedural safeguards ...
Finance : The paper shows that loan fraud persists due to enforcement failures, not lack of legal provisions. It highlights delays in detect...
Corporate Law : The Court held that insolvency proceedings cannot be invoked after completion of SARFAESI auction to stall recovery. It clarified ...
Corporate Law : Learn the critical protections available to borrowers facing recovery actions, including notice, appeal, and redemption rights, to...
Corporate Law : Ministry of Finance addresses Lok Sabha questions on misuse of SARFAESI Act, detailing existing safeguards for borrowers and regul...
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 : Supreme Court held that a Section 7 IBC application can proceed despite pending winding-up proceedings where no irreversible stage...
Corporate Law : Madras HC held that a pending NCLAT appeal did not prevent PNB from conducting a Swiss Challenge auction after the OTS proposal wa...
Corporate Law : DRT Chandigarh quashed the auction after finding the bank failed to maintain the mandatory 15-day notice period before sale....
Corporate Law : The DRAT upheld the DRT's refusal to accept the settlement after finding that the bank had not complied with the final order direc...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court held that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from entertaining writ petitions in SARFAESI matters where an ef...
Corporate Law : IBBI held that an Insolvency Professional cannot delay constitution of the Committee of Creditors based on settlement discussions ...
CA, CS, CMA : CA. Ravish Maniyar found guilty of professional misconduct by ICAI for failing to disclose pending SARFAESI proceedings in an audi...
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) ...
Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule Vs Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari (Supreme Court) (1) (a) The co-operative banks registered under the State legislation and multi-State level co-operative societies registered under the MSCS Act, 2002 with respect to ‘banking’ are governed by the legislation relatable to Entry 45 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of […]
Claim of SBI on income tax refund credited in the the defaulters’ bank account with it would get priority over the government dues including the service tax dues as per section 31-B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and sec. 26E of the SARFAESI Act,2002 w.e.f.1.9.2016.
Bimalkumar Manubhai Savalia Vs Bank of India (NCLAT) Conclusion: Proceedings initiated or pending in DRT, either initiated under SARFAESI or under debts and due to Banks and Financial Institutions could not be taken into account for the purposes of limitation. Therefore, the application filed by Bank before the Adjudicating Authority on 30.08.2018 was beyond the […]
The issue under consideration is whether the High Court was right in directing that pre-deposit was not required for entertaining an appeal before the DRAT as mandated by Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act).
We are fifth largest developing economy in the world and just left behind UK and France few days back. We are second largest country in the world in case of population. We have largest young skilled workforce in the world. For sustainable development of a country a sound and perfect, protected system of banking is […]
Government notifies Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Central Registry) (Amendment) Rules, 2020. MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 24th January, 2020 G.S.R. 45(E).—In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clauses (c) to (g) of sub-section (2) of section 38 read with sections […]
The insertion of sub-section (1A) in Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, the only change that has been brought about is that the District Magistrate/CMM has now the discretion to appoint even their subordinate officers as receivers. Pertinently, sub-section (1A) of Section 14 does not bar the appointment of advocates as receivers. The same position obtains vis-à-vis Rule 8(3) of The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, which has been cited in the aforementioned judgment of the Bombay High Court.
The statutory scheme found in Section 434(1)(c) clearly is that the proceedings for winding up pending before the Company Court could be transferred to the NCLT and there is no provision for transfer of proceedings from the NCLT to the Company Court.
Manglesh Champaklal Gandhi Vs Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. (Gujarat High Court) It is clear that on reading the provisions of Section 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with Rule 8 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the Court held that once possession notice is given under […]
SARFAESI Act provides only secured creditors to initiate action against the borrower and a demand made by a person or legal entity who was not the secured creditor was definitely prejudicial to the interest of assessee.
