Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Priority of SARFAESI Act Over MSMED Act in Loan Recovery Cases: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking verdict, the Honorable Mr. Justice K. Babu delivered a judgment on Thursday, the 19th day of October 2023, affirming the supremacy of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) over the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) in matters of loan recovery. The judgment has far-reaching implications for lenders and borrowers alike.

The key observation in the judgment, "The SARFAESI Act prevails over the MSMED Act when it comes to the recovery of dues from Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise owners," clarifies the precedence of the SARFAESI Act in such cases [Para 9]. This ruling settles a longstanding debate and provides clarity on the legal hierarchy in loan recovery proceedings.

The case revolved around a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking relief from proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner argued that they should be exempt from the SARFAESI Act's provisions due to their status as an MSME under the MSMED Act. However, the judgment emphasized that the SARFAESI Act's non-obstante clause in Section 26-E takes precedence over conflicting provisions in other laws [Para 9].

Moreover, the judgment highlights the principle that alternative statutory remedies must be exhausted before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. This underscores the importance of adhering to established legal procedures in matters of loan recovery [Para 14].

The ruling also serves as a reminder that the High Court's writ jurisdiction should be exercised judiciously in commercial matters, particularly those involving lenders and borrowers. This is in line with the observation in the judgment, "Writ jurisdiction should be exercised with caution in commercial matters" [Para 20].

This landmark judgment has set a significant precedent for loan recovery cases across the country, providing much-needed clarity on the legal hierarchy between the SARFAESI Act and the MSMED Act. It underscores the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and exhausting alternative remedies before approaching the courts for relief.

Legal experts and practitioners are closely watching the implications of this judgment, and it is expected to influence future cases involving loan recovery disputes. In light of this ruling, lenders and borrowers are advised to seek legal counsel to navigate the intricacies of loan recovery proceedings effectively.

Judgment delivered by Honorable Mr. Justice K. Babu has reaffirmed the priority of the SARFAESI Act over the MSMED Act in loan recovery cases, providing much-needed clarity and guidance to stakeholders in the financial sector.

Date of Decision: 19 October 2023.

JAYAPRAKASH A   vs UNION BANK OF INDIA

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/19_October_2023-Jayaprakash_A_vs_Union_Bank_Of_India.pdf"]

Latest Legal News