MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

J&K High Court Dismisses Appeal, Upholds SARFAESI Act’s Bar on Injunction, Cites ‘Abuse of Process’”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the High Court delivered a landmark judgment on July 21, 2023, dismissing an appeal and upholding the application of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, highlighted the court’s strict adherence to the principles of justice, equity, and the prevention of abuse of process.

The subject of the case was the grant of an interlocutory injunction sought by the appellant to restrain the bank from taking action under the SARFAESI Act. The Act empowers banks and financial institutions to recover their non-performing assets (NPAs) without recourse to civil courts, thus streamlining the recovery process. Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act prohibits the granting of injunctions against any action taken or to be taken under the Act.

Justice Nargal, in his judgment, emphasized the essence of the Act and its overriding effect on other laws. He stated, The opening portion of Section 34 clearly states that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a DRT or an Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the Securitization Act to determine.”

The court also observed that the appellant had filed the suit with an ulterior motive and unclean hands. The plaintiff had previously attempted to challenge the mortgage deeds under the Act and failed to obtain relief. Subsequently, they filed the present suit with the intention to stall the bank’s efforts to recover the dues.

Justice Nargal cited the principles of equity, stating, “One who seeks equitable relief must do equity also and demonstrate bonafides.” The court further highlighted the need for parties to come to the court with clean hands, and those who base their case on falsehood have no right to approach the court.

The judgment also reaffirmed the discretionary nature of granting interlocutory injunctions. The court considered factors like prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable injury while deciding whether to grant the injunction.

Date of Decision: 21st July 2023

Raj Kumar Gupta  vs Bank of India and anr. 

Latest Legal News