Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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