Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir on 12 January, 2022
In Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya
Mandir [(2022) 5 SCC 345] the Apex Court was dealing with a
case in which Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. (for brevity 'ARC'), which is a
private financial institution, proposed to take action under the
SARFAESI Act to recover the borrowed amount as a secured
creditor. The Apex Court held that ARC as such cannot be said to
be performing public functions which are normally expected to be
performed by State authorities. During the course of a commercial
transaction and under the contract, the bank/ARC lends money to
the borrowers and the said activity of the bank/ARC cannot be said
to be as performing a public function, which is normally expected
W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 20
2026:KER:29110
to be performed by the State authorities. If proceedings are
initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to
be taken, and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of
the private bank/bank/ARC, he has to avail the remedy under the
SARFESI Act, and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable
and/or entertainable.
Section 18 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Authorized Officer, State Bank Of ... vs Mathew K.C. on 30 January, 2018
In Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v.
Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784], the Apex Court held that no
writ petition would lie against the proceedings under the SARFAESI
Act, in view of the statutory remedy available under the said Act.
United Bank Of India vs Satyawati Tondon & Ors on 26 July, 2010
In paragraph
17 of the decision, the Apex Court reiterated the position of law
regarding the interference of the High Courts in matters pertaining
to the SARFAESI Act by quoting its earlier decisions in Federal
Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas [(2003) 10 SCC 733], United
Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110],
State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [(2018) 3 SCC
85], Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir
[(2022) 5 SCC 345] and Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B.
W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 17
2026:KER:29110
Sreenivasulu [(2023) 2 SCC 168] wherein the said practice has
been deprecated while requesting the High Courts not to entertain
such cases. In paragraph 18 of the said decision, the Apex Court
observed that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India are rather wide, but are required to be
exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters
pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute,
more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a borrower,
when the legislature has provided for a specific mechanism for
appropriate redressal.
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Federal Bank Ltd vs Sagar Thomas & Ors on 26 September, 2003
In paragraph
17 of the decision, the Apex Court reiterated the position of law
regarding the interference of the High Courts in matters pertaining
to the SARFAESI Act by quoting its earlier decisions in Federal
Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas [(2003) 10 SCC 733], United
Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110],
State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [(2018) 3 SCC
85], Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir
[(2022) 5 SCC 345] and Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B.
W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 17
2026:KER:29110
Sreenivasulu [(2023) 2 SCC 168] wherein the said practice has
been deprecated while requesting the High Courts not to entertain
such cases. In paragraph 18 of the said decision, the Apex Court
observed that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India are rather wide, but are required to be
exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters
pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute,
more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a borrower,
when the legislature has provided for a specific mechanism for
appropriate redressal.