Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

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