District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

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