Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Successive FIRs Cannot Be Used to Thwart Bail: Supreme Court Invokes Article 32 to Protect Personal Liberty Supreme Court Enforces Contractual Bar Against Interest in Government Contracts Ex Parte Decree Not a Blank Cheque - Merely Because Defendant Absent, Plaintiff’s Case Not Presumed True: Madras High Court Mandatory Injunction Cannot Be Kept in Cold Storage: Supreme Court Enforces Strict Three-Year Limitation for Execution Senior Citizens Act Is for Maintenance, Not a Shortcut to Eviction: Calcutta High Court Restrains Tribunal’s Overreach Statement ‘Counsel Says’ Is Not a Binding Undertaking Without Client’s Specific Authorization: Allahabad High Court Declines to Initiate Contempt Rigours of Section 43-D(5) Melt Down When Liberty Is at Stake: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case After 2.5 Years’ Custody Vakalatnama Is Not a Mere Form – Attestation Is a Legal Safeguard: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cautions Advocates and Registry on Procedural Sanctity Right to Be Considered for Promotion Is Fundamental – Employer’s Unfairness Cannot Defeat It: : Gujarat High Court Panchayat Statement Implicating Others Is Not a Confession Proper: J&K High Court Rejects Extra-Judicial Confession in Murder Appeal Contempt Lies Only on ‘Wilful and Deliberate Disobedience’ – Fresh KASP Appointments Not Replacement of Daily Wage Workers: Kerala High Court 498A Cannot Become a Dragnet for Entire Family: Orissa High Court Shields Distant In-Laws but Sends Husband to Trial

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