Tag: #Sarfaesiact

Case Number

Transfer Case (civil) 92-95 of 2002

Equivalent Citation

2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 1090

Bench

• Chief Justice Vishweshwar Nath Khare
• Justice Brijesh Kumar
• Justice Arun Kumar

Decided On

April 8, 2004

Relevant Act/Section

• Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002
• Essential Services (Maintenance) Ordinance Repeal Act, 2001
• Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Brief Facts & Procedural History

Here, the constitutionality of SARFAESI was challenged, particularly Sections 13, 15, 17, and 34, on the grounds that they are arbitrary and unjustified.

The Industrial Development Bank of India (for short, ‘the IDBI’) issued a notice to Mardia Chemicals Ltd. on July 24, 2002, under Section 13 of the then-current Ordinance, requiring it to pay the amount of arrears indicated in the notice within 60 days, failing which the IDBI, as a secured creditor, would be entitled to enforce the security interest without the intervention of a court or Tribunal, using all or any of the measures contained in sub-section (4) of S The petitioner was also prohibited from selling, leasing, or otherwise transferring any of the secured assets.

Other financial institutions and banks issued similar notices to other parties who filed petitions in various High Courts under the terms of Section 13 of the Ordinance/Act. This was united with a number of other writ petitions filed in several High Courts contesting the constitutionality of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002.

The petitioners argued that the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 was sufficient to address the difficulty created by NPAs and that the current statute was unnecessary. It is debatable whether the Court should delve into the necessity of a statute while considering its constitutional legitimacy. “The Parliament and Legislatures composed as they are of the Representatives of the people are supposed to be cognizant of the requirements of the people and what is good or harmful for them,” the Supreme Court has previously decided.
The Court is unable to sit in judgment of their wisdom… A law passed by Parliament or a state legislature can be overturned for two reasons:

1. inadequacy of legislative authority
2. infringement of any constitutional rights¹

In BALCO Employees Union v Union of India², the Supreme Court has ruled that the right place for discussing policy issues is the legislature, not the courts.

In light of the Court’s previous pronouncements, it is evident that the question to be answered is whether the legislation is constitutional. Any discussion of whether a statute is required, particularly in light of another Act whose scope is not in question in this case, was superfluous. As a result, the Court declined to hear the case.

Many petitioners argued that the existing rights of private parties under a contract cannot be interfered with, particularly by putting one party in a more advantageous position than the other. In the present case, for example, in a matter of private contract between the borrower and the financing bank or institution, the borrowers’ rights have been curtailed and enforcement of secured assets has been provided without the intervention of the court, denying them the remedy available under the law by approaching the civil court.

The Appellants are vague on where they find the legal validity of their claim. The Honourable Supreme Court has pointed out that, unlike the US Constitution, there is no bar to prospective contract invalidation in India, and hence such a statute is completely constitutional.³

Indeed, the 44th amendment removed the right to property as a basic right from the Constitution, leaving it only as a constitutional right. Indeed, even while the right existed in part III, the courts ruled that absolute contract freedom, as defined by the idea of leissez faire, was no longer valid.⁴

The Appellants have also been unable to locate the rights under Art 19(1)(g) and Art 298. The Supreme Court has ruled that these articles are subject to reasonable constraints and that what is acceptable is to be interpreted in the public interest, regardless of how onerous the restrictions are on the individual’s interests.⁵

In light of these precedents, it’s difficult to identify where the appellants’ reasoning originates. The respondents’ counsels, on the other hand, have not taken a position on the Constitution’s freedom of contract or right to trade, but have pointed out that a similar argument has been raised in a different context, namely statutes providing relief to agricultural borrowers, and has been repeatedly rejected.

It has been contended that certain facts must be determined before the power u/s.13 can be used, such as whether the person to whom notice is given is liable to pay, the magnitude of the liability, and so on. Furthermore, issues such as the law of limitation and bar under consortium agreements, set-off/counterclaim claims, creditors defaults as bailees or failure to disburse credit on time, the changeability of penal interest or compound interest, non-appropriation of funds already paid, and so on and so forth must be resolved.

So, using case law that will be covered in the main project, it was claimed that a lis exists in such a case and that the ability to resolve a lis is a judicial or quasi-judicial power, not solely an administrative function. As a result, a suitable forum must be established to resolve all such disagreements at an early stage.⁶

The statutory provision becomes arbitrary, procedurally, and substantively unfair if such a forum is not established. This is a false argument based on facts. S.13 does not preclude the use of any judicial venue; it just states that a judicial remedy can be sought only after the secured creditor has used his powers under s.13 (4). This is entirely correct. Many legislations provide for the use of a forum after the aggrieved party has exhausted self-help options.

It was also pointed out that the provisions of s.13 generate some practical challenges that could lead to serious legal errors. Section 2(f) of the Act, for example, specifies that the meaning of the term “borrower” includes the guarantor. A guarantor is relieved of his commitment under Section 135 of the Contract Act in certain circumstances. Now, if a discharged guarantee receives a notification under Section 13(2) of the Act, he cannot approach the Court to show and establish that he is a discharged guarantor because Section 34 prohibits him from filing an action in the Civil Court. As a result, notice under Section 13(2) is unfavourable.⁷

These concerns have been addressed by Section 35 of the Securitization Act, which states that the Act’s provisions have precedence over all other laws. Finally, it was pointed out that under s.13 read with s.34, the borrower has no right to go to court before the lender employs the rights granted under s.13 (4), exposing him to arbitrary and potentially fraudulent lending practises. It was argued in defence of this section that because the asset cannot be sold for 60 days under Section 9 of the Rules, the borrower has the option of approaching the Tribunal within that time frame. The Court accepted the plaintiffs’ argument in part and added two riders to s.13. To begin with, it was held that the lender had an obligation to reveal the reasons for not accepting the objections or points expressed in response to the notice issued to them before taking action under Section 13 (4). Second, the Court made a comparison to an English mortgage, pointing out that enforcement proceedings under an English mortgage can be contested on the basis of fraud. This section is also subject to such provisions.⁸

Another point that the Court has overlooked is that a statute must be read in context and in pari materia as a standard rule of legislative construction. The present Act’s s.13 is pari materia with the State Financial Corporation Act of 1951’s s.29. Art 300A, 21, and 14 have all been challenged on the basis of this section’s constitutional vires, specifically that it provides no right of appeal. Though the matter was never heard by the Supreme Court, it was considered by a number of High Courts. The courts have consistently ruled that the Act itself reveals a clear aim and objective and that the power granted under s.29 is intended to carry out that policy, namely, the prompt collection of dues.⁹

Issues before the Court

• Is it possible to challenge the statute on the grounds that it was unnecessary to create it given the circumstances, especially when another statute was already in effect?
• Whether the terms or existing rights under a contract entered into by two private persons could be altered by provisions of law conferring one-sided powers in favour of one of the contracting parties?
• Whether or not Section 13 of the Act is unconstitutional?
• Whether the requirement that 75% of the amount owing to be paid before filing an appeal with the DRT is onerous and thus Section 17 of the Act unconstitutional?

Decision of the Court

In this case, the Supreme Court held that:

a) The Parliament’s superiority in deciding the need for legislation was emphasised.
b) The connection between the RDB Act and SARFAESI was rejected since the latter deals with the highly particular issue of nonperforming assets (NPAs) (among other differences such as the latter dealing only with secured creditors).
c) As a result, it is up to Parliament to decide whether or not legislation is required.
d) Section 13 was found to be constitutionally legitimate by the Court.
e) The secured creditor is only exercising his entitlement because the default that led to the sec 13 measure might be considered a “second default”—NPA + 60 days extra time to repay following notice.
f) Prior to the 2016 Amendment, Section 13 acknowledged the Right of Redemption in a sense. Rule 8 and 9 of the SI Rules stated that the bank must serve a notice confirming the sale of secured property and that the borrower may pay off the obligation and reclaim possession at any point prior to the actual sale
g) While the Supreme Court confirmed the constitutionality of the section, it pushed hard for borrowers to have the right to representation.
h) The Supreme Court determined Section 17(2) to be arbitrary, and ordered that the heading be altered from “appeal” to “application.”

Impact of the Judgement

1. Section 13 now states that the bank must evaluate all of a borrower’s representations and respond within seven days (which was later changed to 15 days).
2. Within section 17, the word “appeal” was replaced by “application,” despite the fact that the marginal header remained the same (wow). In 2016, the appeal was superseded by an application in the marginal heading.
3. DRTs now have jurisdiction over the rights of tenants in a security property. In such instances, the property is given to the person who files the application (if he meets the requirements).
4. Section 18 was also considerably amended. When filing an appeal with the DRAT, you must deposit 50% of the total cost, which can be lowered to 25%. DRT was likewise granted a similar waiver right under Section 17.

Citations:

1. State of Andhra Pradesh v McDowell, AIR 1996 SC 1627
2. AIR 2002 SC 350
3. Raghubir Dayal v Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 263
4. YA Marmade v Authority under Minimum Wages Act, (1972) 2 SCC 108
5. Krishan Kakkanth v Government of Kerala, (1997) 9 SCC 495
6. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu & Ors1992 Suppl. (2) SCC p. 651 and Associated Cement Companies Ltd v. P.N. Sharma (1965(2) SCR p. 366 at pages 386-87).
7. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 1997(5) SCC
8. Adams v. Scott, (1859) 7 WR (Eng.) 213 (Z49)
9. K Surendranathan v Kerala Financial Corporation AIR 1988 Ker 330

This case analysis is done by Arryan Mohanty, a 2nd Year Student student of Symbiosis Law School.

Introduction

One of the primary players in India’s journey to prevailing in quick structure its economy has been the banking sector. Since our present legal framework for business exchanges has not stayed aware of developing strategic policies and monetary sector changes. This outcome in an extended recuperation of defaulted advances and an expansion in the number of nonperforming resources held by banks and monetary organizations. The Central Government laid out the first and second Narasimham Committees, as well as the Andhyarujina Committee, to look at banking sector changes. These committees surveyed the need for changes in the legal framework in these sectors. These committees, among others, have proposed new regulations for securitization that would permit banks and monetary organizations to take care of protections and sell them without the requirement for judicial activity.¹

In light of these suggestions, the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI) were passed by the Parliament on December 17, 2002. The motivation behind this act is to permit banks and financial organizations to expeditiously recover cash progress. The Act licenses banks and financial organizations to sell sold property to recover outstanding obligations that poor person been paid for quite a long time in spite of various updates. Non-performing assets (“NPA”) in the records of banks and financial foundations must be dealt with in much the same way. The property being referred to could be a private or business property that has been sold with a bank or financial establishment as security for the assets progressed. Before the execution of the SARFAESI Act, distressed parties, like banks or financial establishments, would record a common recuperation claim in common court, and the interaction would delay for quite a long time in light of the fact that the common suit was battled by the two sides. Considering this, the law-making body chose to enact regulation that would permit such nonperforming assets (NPAs) to be quickly settled, permitting the bank to reinvest the recuperated reserves. Banks and financial foundations will save time by not recording a claim in common court, which would regularly be an extensive strategy.² Unstable advances, credits under $100,000, and obligations that are under 20% of the underlying guideline are excluded from the resolution. This regulation allowed the arrangement of resource reconstruction organizations (ARCs) and the offer of non-performing assets by banks to ARCs. Without the assent of a court, banks are approved to take responsibility for the property and sell it.

Objective and Applicability

It’s a legal framework that governs securitization transactions. Security interests can be implemented without the support of a court. The Act encourages banks and financial institutions to manage their assets to successfully deal with NPAs, asset reconstruction, and asset securitization organizations are being established. This Act empowers banks and financial institutions to seize hypothecated or mortgaged assets to recover nonperforming assets (NPAs). Without the participation of the court, the SARFAESI Act enables the following recovery channels for NPAs: securitization, asset reconstruction, and security enforcement.

The following topics are covered under the Act:

• The Reserve Bank of India regulates and registers Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs). Facilitating the securitization of banks’ and financial institutions’ financial assets, with or without the use of underlying securities.
• The ARC supports the consistent transferability of financial assets by issuing bonds, debentures, or any other instrument as a debenture to buy financial assets from financial organizations and banks.
• By entrusting the Asset Reconstruction Companies with the task of raising cash through the sale of security receipts to eligible buyers, the Asset Reconstruction Companies will be able to obtain funds.
• Facilitating the reconstruction of financial assets obtained when exercising securities enforcement authorities, management change powers, or other powers intended to be placed on banks and financial organizations.
• The borrower’s account is classified as a non-performing asset following the Reserve Bank of India’s instructions or guidelines released from time to time.
• In this case, the officials authorized shall exercise the rights of a secured creditor in line with the Central Government’s laws.
• An appeal to the relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal and a second appeal to the Appellate Debts Recovery Tribunal against any bank or financial institution’s activity.
• The Central Government may establish or compel the establishment of a Central Registry to register securitization, asset reconstruction, and security interest formation transactions.
• Applicability of the proposed legislation to banks and financial institutions initially, with the Central Government empowered to expand the proposed legislation’s application to non-banking financial enterprises and other organizations.
• The proposed regulation does not apply to security interests in agricultural lands, loans under one lakh rupees, or circumstances where the borrower repays 80% of the loan.

Asset Reconstruction

Asset Construction is covered by RBI regulations and legislative provisions under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It consists of the following:

• The fundamental definition of “asset reconstruction” is the process of transforming nonperforming assets (NPAs) into performing assets.
• It all starts with a specialist Asset Reconstruction Company purchasing defective assets, including hypothecated assets, and financing them by issuing Bonds, Securities, and cash.
• The Asset Reconstruction Company takes over or changes the management of the borrower’s business, sells or leases a part or all of the borrower’s firm, and reschedules the borrower’s debt payments using this approach.

Working of Security Enforcement

The SARFAESI Act gives banks and financial institutions the authority to enforce their securities. The procedure begins with the Debtor being given a 60-day notice period to pay the owing amount. If the outstanding dues are not paid within the required term, the Banks and FI’s have the authority to enforce their SECURITY INTEREST by taking the following steps:

• Banks and financial institutions have the legal right to take ownership of the secured property.
• Banks and financial institutions have the option of selling or leasing such property or assigning the right to security.
• Appointment of a “Manager” to oversee the aforementioned security.

It can approach the borrower’s debtors for payment of the borrower’s debts.

Landmark Cases

M/S Transcore vs Union of India & Anr³
The appellant is M/s Transco, while the respondent is Union of India and Anr. This case is of general interest since it brings up a public approach issue about whether the principal stipulation to Section 19(1) of the DRT Act, 1993 (added by the Amending Act No.30 of 2004) is a condition that should be met prior to utilizing the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The respondent (Indian Overseas Bank) recorded activity with the DRT in Chennai for the recuperation of duty from the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3228 of 2006. In 2005, the Respondent gave a Possession Notice to the appellant under segment 13(4) of the Act, expecting him to reimburse his duty of Rs. 4.15 crores (around) in addition to premium inside sixty days, and expressing that the appellant had neglected to do as such and that the bank had claimed the undaunted properties recorded in the timetable to the Notice, which was then sold. In any case, a common allure has been recorded, and the sale deal has been deferred.

In this case, the Supreme Court reasoned that pulling out a case forthcoming before the DRT is definitely not essential for utilizing the SARFEASI Act. This choice has settled the lawful issue encompassing the send-off of simultaneous procedures under the SARFAESI Act. The allure/I.A. made by the appellant in this Court is excused, yet the allure/I.A. is presented by the banks/FIs. is allowed with no expense’s choice. Besides, the choice in the Transcore case permitted banks and monetary foundations to start systems under both the SARAESI Act and the DRT Act simultaneously. The court likewise held that segment 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is a notification of interest expecting activity to be directed inside the time expressed and not a simple show-cause notice. At the point when a notice is given to the indebted person it is adequately evident, that borrower has neglected to put in his time and his record is classed as NPA. The obligation is distinguished and the record is delegated a nonperforming resource (NPA) under RBI rules. Prior to the bank/FI can summon Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the requirements of Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act should be met. Following the culmination of Section 13(2) conditions, the bank or FI would be qualified to assume responsibility for the borrower’s gotten resources or make different moves. For this situation, the possibility of the political race doesn’t matter in light of the fact that the Act is a beneficial solution for the DRT Act. They are joined to frame a solitary cure; henceforth the possibility of the political race doesn’t have any significant bearing. The SARFAESI Act gives an additional cure that isn’t in a struggle with DRT. The SARFAESI Act was intended to safeguard the bank/premium FI’s in monetary resources that it claims because of an agreement or the use of customary regulation standards. Segment 13 of the SARFAESI Act intends to recuperate reserves utilizing a non-adjudicatory way. Under the SARFAESI Act, a got resource is one in which the borrower makes revenue for the bank/FI and the SARFAESI is determined exclusively on that premise. The reason for adding the stipulation to Section 19(1) of the DRT Act is to bring the arrangements of the DRT Act, the SARFAESI Act, and Order XXIII CPC into the arrangement.⁴

Mardia Chemicals Ltd. vs Union of India⁵
Here, the protected authenticity of SARFAESI was addressed, especially Sections 13, 15, 17, and 34, on the grounds that they are erratic and outlandish. Whenever the Act became real, IDBI Bank gave a notification to Mardia. Mardia defaulted-spoke to the court, where a progression of comparable petitions was assembled and tended to as a solitary case. The appellant battled that section 13 of the SARFAESI Act gives full freedoms to banks and monetary establishments while overlooking the privileges of defaulters. Likewise, borrower interest was not thought about by any means in Section 13. Besides, the borrowers had no right of direction or response to an adjudicatory technique. Section 17(2) of the Act expressed that the defaulter should store 75% of the sum to like and allure the sum was inordinate and subsequently restricted admittance to the legal plan of action of allure maybe a suggested bar had been made/to this, respondent battled that few different regulations accommodated such preconditions/Pet contended that those were for the claim and not for the use of first occurrence/respondent attempted to invalidate that by expressing that The strategy for assuming control over the business and the board of an element, especially a firm, was canvassed in Section 15 of the 15. The appellant likewise fought that section 34 was indistinguishable from Section 34 of the RDB Act, which announced that DRTs have selective locale, i.e., no respectful court will give any request or order against a bank practicing privileges under the Act. SARFAESI was pointless on the grounds that there was at that point a regulation managing this subject issue, and a few regulations were not expected to deal with a similar topic. It was additionally brought up that the most inconvenient obligation section somewhere in the range of 25,000 and 1 lakh dollars-didn’t require separate regulations.

For this situation, the Supreme Court held that the Parliament’s prevalence in concluding the requirement for regulation is underlined. The association between the RDB Act and SARFAESI was dismissed since the last option manages the exceptionally specific issue of nonperforming resources (NPAs) (among different contrasts, for example, the last option managing got leasers). Accordingly, it really depends on Parliament to conclude regardless of whether regulation is required. Section 13 was viewed as intrinsically authentic by the Court. The got bank is just practicing his privilege on the grounds that the default that prompted the sec 13 measure may be viewed as a “second default”- NPA + 60 days additional chance to reimburse following notification. Prior to the 2016 Amendment, Section 13 recognized the Right of Redemption it might be said. Rule 8 and 9 of the SI Rules expressed that the bank should serve a notification affirming the offer of gotten property and that the borrower might take care of the commitment and recover ownership any time before the genuine deal. While the Supreme Court affirmed the section’s legality, it pushed it difficult for borrowers to reserve the privilege to the portrayal. The Supreme Court decided Section 17(2) to be inconsistent and requested that the heading be modified from “claim” to “application.”⁶

Pandurang Ganpati Chaugale v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Ltd⁷
“‘Banking’ relating to cooperatives can be included within the purview of Entry 45 of List I, and it cannot be said to be over inclusion to cover provisions of recovery by cooperative banks in the SARFAESI Act,” a five-judge bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah, and Aniruddha Bose, has held in this case. The ruling of the Court came in a reference made in light of contradictory decisions in Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd.⁸, Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India⁹, T. Velayudhan Achari v. Union of India¹⁰, and Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Association¹¹.

The seat held that the whole situation and banking action of helpful banks is represented by a regulation authorized under Entry 45 of List I, i.e., the BR Act, 1949, and the RBI Act ordered under Entry 38 of List I, saying that “recuperation of duty would be a fundamental capacity of any banking foundation, and the Parliament can sanction a regulation under Entry 45 of List I as the action of banking done by agreeable banks is inside the domain of Entry 45 of List I.” Obviously, under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, Parliament has the position to endorse the solution for recuperation.” The Court likewise clarified that the principal part of the matter of the agreeable bank connecting with banking was covered by the BR Act, 1949, and the Reserve Bank of India Act, such regulations are connected with Entries 45 and 38 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. The parts of ‘joining, regulation and twisting up’ are covered by Entry 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. “As we would see it, such bankers’ banking movement is covered by Entry 45 of List I, which considers the Doctrine of Pith and Substance, as well as the passability of accidental infringement on the field held for the State.” The court reasoned that disturbing ‘banking,’ the regulation connecting with Entry 45 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India administers cooperative banks enrolled under State regulation and multi-State level cooperative social orders enlisted under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act, 2002). The cooperative banks run by cooperative social orders enrolled under State regulation for ‘joining, regulation, and ending up,’ specifically, to issues that are outside the domain of Entry 45 of List I of the Constitution of India, are administered by the said regulation connected with Entry 32 of List II of the Constitution of India. The significance of ‘Banking Company’ is characterized under Section 5(c) read with Section 56(a) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which is a regulation associated with Entry 45 of List I. It manages the ‘banking’ part of co-employable social orders’ banks. The Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and some other regulation appropriate to helpful banks interesting in ‘Banking’ in Entry 45 of List I, and the RBI Act appealing to Entry 38 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, deny agreeable banks from participating in any movement except if they conform to the arrangements of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and some other regulation relevant to such banks engaging to ‘Banking’ in Entry 45 of List I. Under section 2(1)(c) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, state-contracted helpful banks and multi-state agreeable banks are alluded to as “banks.” The recuperation component laid out under section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, regulation connected with Entry 45 List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India is pertinent on the grounds that recuperation is a significant part of banking.¹²

Amendment to the SARFAESI Act

The Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Bill, 2016, was introduced in Parliament to amend four laws: the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI), the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the Depositories Act, 1996. When secured creditor defaults on a loan, the SARFAESI Act permits secured creditors to seize the collateral used to finance the transaction. This procedure is carried out with the help of the District Magistrate and does not necessitate the involvement of courts or tribunals. The District Magistrate must finish this process within 30 days, according to the Bill. Furthermore, the Bill authorizes the District Magistrate to assist banks in assuming management of a company if it is unable to repay loans. This will be done if the banks convert their outstanding loans into equity shares and hold a 51 percent or greater ownership in the company as a result.

The Act establishes a single registry to keep track of secured asset transactions. The bill establishes a consolidated database that will allow property records from diverse registration systems to be integrated into one central registry. This contains registrations made under the Companies Act of 2013, the Registration Act of 1908, and the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. Secured creditors will not be able to take possession of collateral unless it is registered with the central registration, according to the bill. Furthermore, after the registration of a security interest, these creditors will have priority over others in the repayment of their debts.¹³

Conclusion

With the recent judgment made by the Supreme Court of India, all state and multi-state cooperative banks will now be subject to the SARFAESI Act of 2002. Banks can now sell and seize defaulters’ properties to recover their debts, because of the Supreme Court’s crucial decision. The court bench also recognized a 2003 notification that cooperative banks are covered by the SARFAESI Act and are entitled to seek redress. Cooperative banks had to go to court to recover their dues before this notification was written. The Supreme Court went on to say that this decision was made to eliminate delays in collecting dues because cooperative banks are required to resort to civil courts under the Cooperative Societies Act to do so. The court also held that co-operative banks that engage in banking activities are subject to Sections 5 (c) and 56 (a) of the Banking Regulation Act of 1949, which are laws related to List I Entry 45. (Union List).¹⁴ After the judgment made by the Court regarding this issue, experts hope that it would bring the much-needed reforms in the cooperative banks sector, which has been subjected to bankruptcy and corruption. They also believe that it would bring large-scale implications.

References:

1. SARFAESI ACT, 2002- Applicability, Objectives, Process, Documentation, cleartax.in https://cleartax.in/s/sarfaesi-act-2002 
2. An overview of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), Arun Bapat, iPleaders https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-securitisation-reconstruction-financial-assets-enforcement-security-interest-act/
3. 2006(5) CTC 753(SC)
4. M/S Transcore vs Union of India & Anr, Darshika Rughani, Pro Bono India https://probono-india.in/research-paper-detail.php?id=415 
5. Case No.: Transfer Case (civil) 92-95 of 2002
6. Constitutional Validity of SARFAESI Act of 2002 tested under ‘Mardia Chemicals vs. UOI’, Shubham Phophalia, taxguru  https://taxguru.in/finance/constitutional-validity-sarfaesi-act-2002-tested-mardia-chemicals-vs-uoi.html
7. 2020 SC 431
8. (2007) 6 SCC 236
9. (1993) 2 SCC 582
10. (1983) 4 SCC 166
11. (2007) 6 SCC 236
12. SARFAESI Act applicable to Cooperative Banks: Constitution Bench, Prachi Bharadwaj, SCC Online https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/05/05/sarfaesi-act-applicable-to-cooperative-banks-constitution-bench/ 
13. The Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Bill, 2016, PRS India https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-enforcement-of-security-interest-and-recovery-of-debts-laws-and-miscellaneous-provisions-amendment-bill-2016#:~:text=Amendments%20to%20the%20SARFAESI%20Act,intervention%20of%20courts%20or%20tribunals.
14. What is SARFAESI Act? Jagran Josh https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/sarfaesi-act-1588850144-1

This article is written by Arryan Mohanty, a student of Symbiosis Law School.

BACKGROUND

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was the former legislation exercised for the recovery of default” loans. According to the Narasimhan Committee’s suggestions, this act was passed and introduced to the public authority. This statute established “Debt Recovery Tribunals and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals for the rapid adjudication of disputes” over truly rising non-recovered dues.

SARFAESI ACT, 2002

The SARFAESI Act (Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002) is an Indian statute. It empowers banks and other financial institutions to auction off defaulters’ homes or businesses to recoup loans. Under this act, India’s first asset reconstruction Corporation (ARC), ARCIL, was established.

The SARFAESI Act, 2002 was established by the government in the year 2002 to give financial institutions a safeguard in the event of defaults. The statute, among other things, allows banks to seize and sell the security against a loan if the borrower defaults.

The SARFAESI Act of 2002 is an act to govern the securitization and reconstruction of financial assets, as well as the enforcement of security interests, and to provide for a central database of security interests created on property rights, and for matters associated with or incidental thereto.

Secured creditors (banks or financial institutions) have a number of rights, under section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for the enforcement of security interests. If a borrower of financial assistance defaults on a loan or installment and his account is classed as a nonperforming asset by a secured creditor, the secured creditor may require written notice before the term of limitation expires.

CASE LAWS RELATED TO SARFAESI ACT

The Supreme Court of India announced the Sarfaesi Act constitutionally legal in the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. ICICI Bank¹ on April 8, 2004. 1 The Court held that a borrower may file a debt recovery tribunal complaint against the lender without having to deposit 75% of the outstanding amount. The lender may sell the assets if the tribunal does not stay the ruling.

OBJECTIVES OF THE ACT

The Financial Assets Securitization and Reconstruction Act (SARFAESI Act) governs the securitization and reconstruction of financial assets. The Act establishes a single database of security interests based on property rights or factors related to or incidental to property rights.²

FEATURES OF SARFAESI ACT

Security interest enforcement: It allows secured creditors to enforce their security interests without the need for court intervention. In the event of a borrower’s default, the statute allows a bank or financial institution to issue a demand notice to the borrower, requiring him or her to settle the debt within sixty days of receiving the notification. Reconstruction of financial assets: The act empowers bankers and financial institutions to conduct appropriate management, sale, settlement, or possession procedures as needed under SBI standards. Securitization of financial assets and issuance of security receipts: The “major goal of the securitization act is to make security interest enforcement possible, i.e., to take control of the assets pledged as collateral” for the loan.

WHAT IS A HOME LOAN

A housing/home loan, normally called a mortgage, is a sum of money borrowed by an individual from a bank or other lending institution. The borrower must repay the loan the amount plus interest in Easy Monthly Instalments, or EMIs, over a period of time that can range from 10 to 30 years, depending on the loan type.

TYPES OF HOME LOANS

There are various types of house loan choices available to fit each individual situation. Home loans can be used to purchase either commercial or residential properties.

Here are some of the several types of house loans available.

• Property Purchase Loan – You can purchase any house or home within your budget with this loan.
• Construction Home Loan – This loan can be used to cover the costs of constructing a home.
• Land Purchase Loan – This loan can be used to purchase a piece of land.
• Home Improvement Loan – This loan can be used to improve and renovate your home.
• House Repair Loan – Use this loan to cover the costs of home repairs and restoration.
• Home Extension Loan — With this loan, you can increase the amount of built-up area in your home.

SARFAESI ACT PROCEDURE IN CASE OF HOME LOANS

Before a bank may repossess a property and claim it to recoup its debts, it must follow specific procedures. The SARFAESI Act procedure is the framework in which they operate. Under the SARFAESI Act, if a borrower is unable to repay his loan (including home loans) for six months, the bank has the legal right to issue him a letter requesting that he settle his debts within 60 days. If the borrower fails to pay this obligation, the financial institution has the authority to sell the property in a distress sale to recoup the debt. Within 30 days from the day order is passed, a person, in evading, who is aggrieved by the bank’s order may appeal to the appellate authority established by law.³

The bank has the choice to lease or sell the property once it has taken possession of it. It can also provide another entity the right to use the property. The revenues from the sale are used to pay down the bank’s outstanding debts first. If there is any money left over, it is paid to the defaulting borrower.

CONCLUSION

Despite the fact that the SARFAESI Act was enacted to help banks prepare blocked funds in non-performing assets, the various provisions of the act have caused genuine buyers great grief. The many rules aimed at balancing the needs of borrowers and banks have changed the balance of power in favor of the banks. The majority of the time, these powers are employed by banks to fit their own interests above the interests of the buyers. In this context, it is acceptable for the common courts to take on more social responsibility for the borrowers’ greater interests on the one hand, and to share the banks’ obligations for assembling funds from the numerous non-performing assets on the other.⁴

REFERENCES

1. Home Loan, https://www.adityabirlacapital.com/abc-of-money/what-is-a-home-loan
2. SARFAESI ACT APPLICABILITY, https://cleartax.in/s/sarfaesi-act-2002
3. All you want to know about Sarfaesi Act, 2002,
   https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/slate/all-you-wanted-to-know-about/article31559808.ece
4. Sarfaesi act, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securitisation_and_Reconstruction_of_Financial_Assets_and_Enforcement_of_Security_Interest_Act,_2002

This article is written by Dalima Pushkarna student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow.