Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.32 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]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
M/S. South Indian Bank Ltd. vs Naveen Mathew Philip on 17 April, 2023
In South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew
Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311], in the context of the challenge
made against the notices issued under Section 13(4) of the
SARFAESI Act, the Apex Court reiterated the settled position of
law on the interference of the High Court invoking Article 226 of
the Constitution of India in commercial matters, where an
effective and efficacious alternative forum has been constituted
through a statute. In the said decision, the Apex Court took
judicial notice of the fact that certain High Courts continue to
interfere in such matters, leading to a regular supply of cases
before the Apex Court. The Apex Court reiterated that a writ of
certiorari is to be issued over a decision when the court finds
that the process does not conform to the law or the statute. In
other words, courts are not expected to substitute themselves
with the decision-making authority while finding fault with the
process along with the reasons assigned. Such a writ is not
expected to be issued to remedy all violations. When a Tribunal
is constituted, it is expected to go into the issues of fact and law,
including a statutory violation. A question as to whether such a
violation would be over a mandatory prescription as against a
discretionary one is primarily within the domain of the Tribunal.
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc vs U.O.I. & Ors. Etc. Etc on 8 April, 2004
W.A.No.3209 of 2025 8 2026:KER:5778
The issues governing waiver, acquiescence and estoppel are also
primarily within the domain of the Tribunal. The object and
reasons behind the SARFAESI Act are very clear as observed in
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [(2004) 4 SCC
311]. While it facilitates a faster and smoother mode of recovery
sans any interference from the court, it does provide a fair
mechanism in the form of the Tribunal being manned by a legally
trained mind. The Tribunal is clothed with a wide range of powers
to set aside an illegal order, and thereafter, grant consequential
reliefs, including repossession and payment of compensation and
costs. Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act gives an expansive
meaning to the expression 'any person', who could approach the
Tribunal.
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. 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
W.A.No.3209 of 2025 10 2026:KER:5778
statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a
borrower, when the legislature has provided for a specific
mechanism for appropriate redressal.
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. 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
W.A.No.3209 of 2025 10 2026:KER:5778
statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a
borrower, when the legislature has provided for a specific
mechanism for appropriate redressal.
Authorized Officer, State Bank Of ... vs Mathew K.C. on 30 January, 2018
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. 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
W.A.No.3209 of 2025 10 2026:KER:5778
statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a
borrower, when the legislature has provided for a specific
mechanism for appropriate redressal.
Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir on 12 January, 2022
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. 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
W.A.No.3209 of 2025 10 2026:KER:5778
statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a
borrower, when the legislature has provided for a specific
mechanism for appropriate redressal.