Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

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"]

Similar News