Industrial Units In MIDC Areas Exempt From Municipal Property Tax Only As Long As MIDC Provides Amenities: Supreme Court MIDC Service Charges Are Fees For Services, Not Taxes; Industrial Units Must Pay Municipal Property Tax: Supreme Court Public Servants Have No Vested Right To Be Considered For Promotion Under Repealed Rules: Supreme Court IBC | Successful Resolution Applicant Cannot Renege From Approved Plan By Citing Pending Litigations Or Letter Of Intent Conditions: Supreme Court Payment Of 93% Sale Consideration Demonstrates Readiness & Willingness For Specific Performance: Supreme Court Delay In Issuing Legal Notice No Ground To Deny Specific Performance If Suit Filed Within Limitation: Supreme Court Brandishing Pistol At Children During Abduction Inherently Constitutes Threat To Cause Death Or Hurt: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 364A IPC Lack Of CDR Records For 2003-Era Kidnapping Not Fatal To Prosecution If Oral Evidence Of Ransom Is Cogent: Supreme Court Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage On Ground Of Irretrievable Breakdown Under Article 142 Despite Wife's Opposition To Decree Failure To Conduct TIP For Unknown Accused Diminishes Evidentiary Value Of Dock Identification: Supreme Court Acquits Rape-Murder Convicts On Death Row Padded Evidence Created By Investigating Agency To Bolster Prosecution Case Fatal To Conviction In Circumstantial Evidence Cases: Supreme Court CCI Has No Inherent Power To Keep Combination Approval In Abeyance Or Order Re-Notification Without Express Statutory Authority: Supreme Court CCI Cannot Reopen Concluded Merger Approvals After One Year; Characterization Dispute In Filing Is Not 'Non-Disclosure': Supreme Court Sets Aside Orders Against Amazon Stamping Defects Are Curable, Arbitrators Empowered To Decide Such Objections Under Section 16 A&C Act: Supreme Court Rejection Of Section 16 Objection By Arbitrator Cannot Be Challenged Under Article 226/227; Aggrieved Party Must Wait For Final Award: Supreme Court Police Parading Accused Or Orchestrating Social Media Condemnation Is Extra-Legal Punishment, Violates Article 21: Rajasthan High Court Inclusion Of Hash Value In Electronic Record Certificates Is Essential For Data Integrity; Not Arbitrary: Supreme Court Judiciary Not Above Criticism; Portraying Imaginary Corrupt Court In Films Doesn't Scandalize Real Courts: Madras High Court

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