Sarfaesi - S. 14

Supreme Court e@Journal - 2021
@ Rs. 1000/-  (starting today till 31.12.2021)
Punjab Law Reporter - 2021
@ Rs. 2800/- for 4 printed volumes (Monthly reports) including Supreme Court eJournal 

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002,  Section 14 – Inability to take possession within time limit of within 30 days and for reasons to be recorded within 60 days,  does not render the District Magistrate Functus Officio - The time limit is to instill a confidence in creditors that the District Magistrate will make an attempt to deliver possession as well as to impose a duty on the District Magistrate to make an earnest effort to comply with the mandate of the statute to deliver the possession within 30 days and for reasons to be recorded within 60 days. In this light, the remedy under Section 14 of the Act is not rendered redundant if the District Magistrate is unable to handover the possession. The District Magistrate will still be enjoined upon, the duty to facilitate delivery of possession at the earliest. #2020 SCeJ 1963 

 

See Also BANKING

 

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002  - Constitution of India, Articles 226 or 227 - Interim orders should generally not be passed without hearing the secured creditor as interim orders defeat the very purpose of expeditious recovery of public money. #2020 SCeJ 1963 

Held,

 

Even though, this Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 110 held that in cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies/institutions, which will ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Hindon Forge Private Limited, (2019) 2 SCC 198  has held that the remedy of an aggrieved person by a secured creditor under the Act is by way of an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, however, borrowers and other aggrieved persons are invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India without availing the alternative statutory remedy. The Hon’ble High Courts are well aware of the limitations in exercising their jurisdiction when affective alternative remedies are available, but a word of caution would be still necessary for the High Courts that interim orders should generally not be passed without hearing the secured creditor as interim orders defeat the very purpose of expeditious recovery of public money. #2020 SCeJ 1963