NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

High Court Upholds Jurisdictional Bar of Civil Courts in SARFAESI Act Cases: Limited Scope for Civil Court Intervention in Secured Asset Disputes

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has delivered a significant ruling in CR-7563-2019, reinforcing the limited scope of civil court intervention in cases involving the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). Justice Vikram Aggarwal, in a landmark judgment, upheld the lower courts’ decision to reject a plaint, emphasizing the jurisdictional limitations imposed on civil courts by the SARFAESI Act.

The case, involving Kunal Sharma as the petitioner against Hero Fincorp Ltd. And others, was pivotal in defining the contours of the civil court’s jurisdiction in loan transaction disputes. The petitioner challenged the orders of the lower courts, which had rejected his plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the civil court lacked jurisdiction in light of the SARFAESI Act.

In his ruling, Justice Aggarwal quoted, “To a very limited extent jurisdiction of the civil court can also be invoked, where for example, the action of the secured creditor is alleged to be fraudulent or his claim may be so absurd and untenable which may not require any probe whatsoever.” This statement underscores the High Court’s recognition of the SARFAESI Act’s role in limiting civil court involvement in secured asset disputes.

The judgment also clarified that while allegations of fraud in loan transactions might arise, these issues are predominantly within the purview of the Debts Recovery Tribunal as per the SARFAESI Act. The court noted that accepting such contentions in civil courts could undermine the efficacy of the SARFAESI Act, leading to its provisions being defeated in cases involving loans and guarantees.

The dismissal of the revision petition by the High Court has set a clear precedent that disputes related to enforcement of security interests under the SARFAESI Act fall outside the jurisdiction of civil courts. This decision is expected to streamline the process of loan recovery and enforcement of security interests, reinforcing the authority of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in such matters.

Date of Decision: 28.11.2023

Kunal Sharma VS Hero Fincorp Ltd. and others

 

Latest Legal News