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) ...
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the reduction of future interest where the lender failed to disburse the entire sanctioned loan on time. The ruling affirms that tribunals may lower interest rates when lender conduct affects project completion.
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.
