IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme 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