Landmark Judgments on Banking Laws by the SC and HC’s in 2022 (RDDB, SARFAESI, RBI, BRA Enactments) Part II
by Siddharth R. Gupta† and Prakriti††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 29
SARFAESI
Secure or Not: Sale by Way of Private Treaty under SARFAESI
by Shantanu Tyagi† and Aishani Das††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 21
Borrower to pre-deposit 50% of the “debt due” including ‘interest’ under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court
The Court was called upon to decide as to while calculating the amount to be deposited as predeposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 50% of which amount the borrower is required to deposit as pre-deposit and whether while calculating the amount of “debt due”, the amount deposited by the auction purchaser on purchase of the secured assets is required to be adjusted and/or appropriated towards the amount of pre-deposit to be deposited by the borrower under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
Divesting DRTs of their pecuniary jurisdiction without any amendment to RDB Act 1993 is unsustainable; Bombay HC stays notification changing DRT jurisdiction in matters above ₹100 crores
Bombay High Court: While hearing a challenge to the Government Notification dated 04/10/2022 changing the jurisdiction of Dept Recovery Tribunals
Secured Creditor or Revenue Department- Who has priority over liquidation of their respective dues? Bombay HC frames and answers Seven substantial questions
Bombay High Court: The issue before the Court in the instant matter was that between a secured creditor (defined in
Bombay High Court| S. 14 of SARFAESI Act empowers the Designated Authority only to assist secured creditors in taking possession of secured assets and nothing more
Bombay High Court: While deciding the instantwrit petition wherein the issue was regarding transgression of Additional District Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 14
IBC| Once CIRP is initiated and moratorium is ordered, proceedings under SARFAESI Act cannot continue: Supreme Court
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai*, JJ has held that the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction
Whether confiscation by Custom & Excise Authority forfeits the claim of Secured Creditor over such property? Whether the dues of Excise department create a First Charge? SC answers
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran*, JJ., quashed the confiscation order of Customs and Central Excise
Evolving Jurisprudence in Connection with SARFAESI vis-à-vis Pending Statutory Dues
by Rahul Chakraborti†, Prashamsha Tulachan†† and Saumya Agarwal†††
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 27
Advocate an officer of the Court; May be appointed by CMM/DM to assist in execution of order passed under Section 14(1) of SARFAESI: SC
Supreme Court: Holding Advocates to be officers of the Court, the bench of AM Khanwilkar* and CT Ravikumar, JJ t has held
No borrower can claim benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme as a right; Can’t encourage dishonest borrowers: SC
“If it is held that the borrower can still, as a matter of right, pray for benefit under the OTS Scheme, in that case, it would be giving a premium to a dishonest borrower.”
Dealing with Non-Performing Assets: Analysing Bad Bank as a Solution
by Deepanshi Gupta*and Aadesh Shinde**
Diligence by Purchaser Prior to Acquisition of Secured Assets under SARFAESI
by Bhoumick Vaidya† and Harshini Kotecha††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 77
Ker HC | No bar to parallel proceedings under SARFAESI Act during ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process; HC reiterates
Kerala High Court: A.M. Badar, J., while dismissing the present petition, reiterated the observations of the Supreme Court in the words, “In
2020 Roundup: 11 Constitution bench judgments, 17 judges, Zero dissent
♦ Did you know? In the year 2020, All the Constitution bench verdicts were unanimous with no dissenting opinion. 9 out of
Does the remedy under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act becomes redundant if DM is unable to take possession of secured assets within time limit? Read what SC says
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta* and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has upheld Kerala High Court’s decision holding
Del HC | Is the liability of Principal Borrower and Guarantor co-extensive? Court reiterates SC’s position on continuation of SARFAESI proceedings against Guarantor by banks
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Subramonium Prasad, JJ., considered the following question: Whether a bank/financial institution can institute
Kar HC | ‘He who comes for relief in equity must come with clean handsʼ; Petition dismissed
Karnataka High Court: P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J., rejects the petition seeking the writ of certiorari against the order of NCLT imposing heavy
