Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay 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