Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.27 seconds)Section 11 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Unique Engineering Works vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 December, 2003
Corpn. Ltd. 2014 SCC OnLine Ori 75 made a reference to the Division
Bench Judgement of Uttarakhand High Court in Unique Engg. Works Vs.
Union of India 2003 SCC OnLine UTT 107 to observe that the SARFAESI
Act was enacted by the Parliament to remedy a situation and provide a
measure against secured interest. The key feature of SARFAESI Act is
really to provide a procedural remedy against security interest already
created. Therefore, an existing borrower, who had been granted financial
assistance, was covered under Section 2(1) (f) of the SARFAESI Act as the
borrower. Not only this, the definition clauses dealing with debt securities,
financial assistance, financial assets, etc., clearly convey the legislative
intent that the SARFAESI Act applied to all existing agreements irrespective
of the fact whether the lender was as notified "financial institution" on the
date of the execution of the Agreement with the borrower or not.
Mathew Varghese vs M.Amritha Kumar . on 5 December, 2014
In Mathew Varghese Vs. M. Amritha Kumar (2014) 5 SCC 610, the
Supreme Court made a reference to Section 37 to observe that the remedy
created under the SARFAESI Act was in addition to the provisions of the
recovery of debt under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed ARB.P.62/2022 & O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 9/2022 Page 11 of 16
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:14.10.2022
15:59:29
Institutions Act, 1993 ((hereinafter referred to as "RDDB Act"). Section 35
provides that the provisions of SARFAESI Act would have over-riding
effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for
the time being in force. Therefore, conjoint reading of Section 35 and 37
would lead to the irresistible conclusion that the provisions of RDDB Act
are not inconsistent with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the
application of both the Acts would be complementary to each other.
M/S Transcore vs Union Of India & Anr on 29 November, 2006
30. This aspect was fully explained by the Supreme Court in Transcore
Vs. Union of India, (2008) 1 SCC 125 wherein it was observed that the
doctrine of election applies only if there is one remedy. However, the NPA
Act is an additional remedy to the DRT Act, together they constitute one
remedy and therefore, the doctrine of election does not apply. There is no
repugnancy or inconsistency between the two remedies and therefore the
doctrine of election does not apply.
M.D.Frozen Foods Exports Private ... vs Hero Fincorp Limited on 13 July, 2017
35. Further, in M.D. Frozen Foods (supra) it was explained that
SARFAESI proceedings are in the nature of enforcement proceedings while
arbitration is an adjudicatory process. In the event that the secured assets are
insufficient to satisfy the debts, the secured creditor can proceed against
other assets in execution against the debtor, after the determination of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed ARB.P.62/2022 & O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 9/2022 Page 13 of 16
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:14.10.2022
15:59:29
pending outstanding amount by a competent forum. Therefore, the
provisions of the SARFAESI Act are a remedy in addition to the
adjudication under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as an alternate
forum to Civil Court/DRT.