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 : Learn how secured creditors can relinquish or realize their security interest during liquidation under IBC, including timelines an...
Corporate Law : Explore how the SARFAESI Act transformed banking practices, enhancing recovery processes while raising concerns about borrowers' r...
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...
Income Tax : The ITAT Mumbai ruled that income earned by a securitisation trust created under the SARFAESI Act was taxable in the hands of Secu...
Corporate Law : The Court held that disputed issues and ongoing statutory proceedings cannot be challenged through a writ petition. It emphasized ...
Corporate Law : The High Court held that DRT orders are appealable under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. It ruled that writ jurisdiction cannot be...
Corporate Law : The Tribunal admitted the voluntary insolvency application after examining financial statements, bank records, and other documents...
Corporate Law : The tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent to hold that a second proceeding cannot be filed when an earlier challenge has been...
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) ...
Fema / RBI : Sale notice for sale of movable properties- E-Auction Sale Notice for Sale of Movable Assets under the Securitisation and Reconstr...
The Tribunal held that payment of the balance sale consideration without a written extension violates Rule 9(4). Auction sale and sale certificate were therefore declared invalid.
The dispute concerned whether DRT Hyderabad had territorial jurisdiction over a recovery application. The Tribunal held that jurisdiction was valid since the bank office maintaining the loan account was located at Hyderabad.
The High Court examined whether the borrower was denied the mandatory 30-day period before auction under SARFAESI. Relying on the post-2016 legal position, it held that sufficient time was available and the sale was valid.
The court examined whether possession assistance could be granted when the assignee’s rights were pending approval. It upheld the rejection, holding that verification of a valid assignment is mandatory under Section 14.
The appellate tribunal held that a date discrepancy in the possession notice was a harmless typographical error. It ruled that SARFAESI procedures were substantially complied with and restored the bank’s recovery action.
The appellate tribunal held that the bank had duly served, published, and affixed the sale notice as required under Rule 8(6). It ruled that the DRT erred in cancelling the auction despite full statutory compliance.
The appellate tribunal upheld the award of 9% interest on refund to an auction purchaser, holding that statutory violations by the bank’s authorised officer justified compensation despite a no-interest clause.
The appellate tribunal held that the magistrate had lawfully exercised powers under Section 14 after considering the statutory affidavit. The DRT’s restraint on recovery action was found to be contrary to law and was set aside.
The appellate tribunal held that the bank violated Rule 8(5) by conducting the auction nearly ten months after valuation without obtaining a fresh report. The sale and subsequent actions were set aside on this ground.
The appellate tribunal upheld cancellation of the auction after finding that possession and sale notices were not properly served. It ruled that recovery actions without statutory compliance cannot be sustained.
