Part-Time Workers Serving For Decades Entitled To Regularization; 'Uma Devi' Ruling Cannot Be Weaponized To Deny Legitimate Claims: Rajasthan High Court Order Rejecting Or Allowing To Register FIR U/S Section 156(3) CrPC Application Is Not Interlocutory; Criminal Revision Is Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Default Bail | Failure To Produce Accused During Hearing For Extension Of Remand Time Is Gross Illegality, Violates Article 21: Andhra Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act Liability Of Directors Subsists Despite Initiation Of Liquidation Proceedings Against Company: Supreme Court Purchaser Of Property For Valuable Consideration Cannot Be Accused Of Cheating Original Owner If Title Document Is Forged: Supreme Court Appointment Of Minor To Public Post Is Per Se Illegal, Void Ab Initio: Allahabad High Court Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Abdicate Duty To Decide Limitation Objection Merely Because High Court Appointed Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court Deemed Conveyance Cannot Be Restricted To Building Footprint; Must Include Appurtenant Open Spaces Required By Planning Law: Bombay High Court Mere Discovery Of Accused's Presence At A Location Not A 'Fact Discovered' Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Delhi High Court Acquits Official In 1989 Bribe Case Section 307 IPC Is Not A 'Minor Offence' To Section 324 IPC; Accused Cannot Be Convicted For Attempt To Murder If Only Charged With Voluntarily Causing Hurt: Delhi High Court Landowners Under National Highways Act Entitled To 15% Interest On Enhanced Compensation; Denial Is Discriminatory: Punjab & Haryana HC Omission Of Village Name In Gazette Notification No Bar To Laying Transmission Lines If Area Falls 'Around' Notified Route: Orissa High Court NBFCs Cannot Use Force For Vehicle Repossession; Coercive Debt Recovery Violates Right To Livelihood Under Article 21: Uttarakhand High Court Non-Candidates Cannot Be Impleaded As Parties In Election Petitions Even If Allegations Of Impropriety Are Made: J&K&L High Court Lowest Bidder Has No Vested Right To Contract; Budgetary Constraints Valid Ground To Cancel Tender: Jharkhand High Court Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi High Court

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