Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

SARFAESI Act Prevails Over MSMED Act: Kerala High Court Dismisses Challenge to Loan Recovery Proceedings

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal decision, the Kerala High Court reaffirmed 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 (MSMED Act). The court dismissed a challenge brought by the proprietor of M/S. Alfana Cashew against loan recovery proceedings initiated by Karnataka Bank Ltd.

The court's ruling, delivered by THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. BABU, emphasized the precedence of SARFAESI Act in matters of loan recovery and NPA classification. The petitioner, a proprietorship firm engaged in cashew processing, had availed a credit facility from the bank. Following a business downturn and loan default, the bank classified the loan account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on November 30, 2019, and initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

The petitioner argued that the bank should have referred the matter to the MSME Committee for a Corrective Action Plan, as per RBI guidelines. However, the court held that SARFAESI Act takes precedence over the MSMED Act, stating, ”Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act which has been inserted vide Amendment in 2016 provides that debts due to any secured creditor shall be paid in ‘priority’ over all other debts. The priority to secured creditors in payment of debt as per Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act shall prevail over the recovery mechanism of the MSMED Act.”

The court also highlighted the principle of exhausting alternative statutory remedies before resorting to Article 226 of the Constitution, stating, ”The SARFAESI Act is a complete code providing an effective remedy to any person aggrieved by the proceedings initiated under Section 13. Therefore, the SARFAESI Act is a complete code providing effective and efficacious remedy to any person aggrieved by the proceedings initiated under Section 13.”

This judgment reiterates the importance of adhering to the established legal framework in loan recovery cases and the significance of the SARFAESI Act in matters of secured creditor rights. The court’s decision has implications for similar cases across the country.

Representing the petitioner were Adv. Sri.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH, Adv. P.PRAMEL, Adv. ASHIK TOM, and Adv. RAMSEENA N. CELINE JOHN. SC SRI.JACOB GEORGE and Adv. K.P.SUJESH KUMAR represented Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Date of Decision: 31 OCTOBER 2023

NAZIR,PROPRIETOR OF M/S. ALFANA CASHEW VS KARNATAKA BANK LTD.

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/31-Oct-2023-Nazir-Vs-Karnatka-Bank-Ltd.pdf"]

Latest Legal News