Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

17 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

RUTU MIHIR PANCHAL & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 59329 April 2025Disposed off

The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which base the pecuniary jurisdiction of district, state and national consumer commissions on the value of consideration paid rather than the compensation claimed. The challenge arose fr

M.S. SANJAYversusINDIAN BANK & ORS.

2025 INSC 17729 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant purchased a mortgaged property at an auction conducted on 31 July 2007 and received a sale certificate on 30 November 2007, thereafter developing the property. The guarantor of the original borrower challenged the auction before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which set aside the sale; the decision was later

ANIL KHANDELWAL ETC.versusPHOENIX INDIA AND ANR.

2025 INSC 106928 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Bank of Baroda issued a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act to recover defaulted loans, but a clerical error inflated the outstanding amount, leading the borrower Phoenix India to allege defamation and file a criminal complaint under Sections 499, 500 and 501 IPC against the Bank's senior officers. The magistr

GBJ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSRIHARAN SRIPATHMANATHAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 58528 April 2025Disposed off

GBJ Hotels Private Limited had its bid of Rs.108 crore accepted in an auction under the SARFAESI Act for assets of defaulting borrowers who owed about Rs.135 crore to Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (ARCL). A third party, GRT Hotels, subsequently offered a higher amount of Rs.120 crore, prompting the Mad

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusCORPORATION BANK & ORS.

2025 INSC 116125 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had allotted a plot to Sarita Vihar Club under a lease that gave DDA a pre‑emptive right to purchase and required Lieutenant Governor’s consent for any mortgage. The Club mortgaged the plot to Corporation Bank without such consent, defaulted on the loan and the Bank sought recovery

SATHEESH V.K.versusTHE FEDERAL BANK LTD.

2025 INSC 114023 September 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a borrower, defaulted on a loan from The Federal Bank and the bank classified the loan as a Non‑Performing Asset, invoking SARFAESI provisions. The High Court ordered the appellant to pay Rs.2 crore immediately and the balance in twelve instalments, which the appellant challenged by a Special Leave Petit

RAJAN CHADHA & ANR.versusSANJAY ARORA

2025 INSC 54623 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, shareholders of RBT Private Ltd., filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondent, a fellow shareholder, willfully violated court and arbitral orders by removing assets and failing to pay loan EMIs. A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on 5 December 2023 held the respondent guilty of contempt a

ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.versusTANYA ENERGY ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI ALLURI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA VARMA

2025 INSC 111915 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The State Bank of India (SBI) had secured credit facilities from Tanya Energy Enterprises, which defaulted and faced recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. SBI introduced a One Time Settlement (OTS) 2020 Scheme requiring a 5% up‑front payment for any application, but t

PNB HOUSING FINANCE LIMITEDversusSH. MANOJ SAHA & ANR

2025 INSC 84715 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, PNB Housing Finance Ltd., took symbolic and later physical possession of a premises that had been offered as security for a loan to the borrower (2nd Respondent) after the borrower defaulted. The 1st Respondent claimed to be a tenant of the premises since 1987 under an unregistered lease and sought resto

SHRICHAND RAJARAM KUKREJA AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

2025 INSC 79414 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, a sub‑contractor, alleged that the appellants (directors of Bharat Udyog Ltd.) had partially paid him for work on a sewerage plant and had forged engineers' signatures to claim they performed the work. He filed an FIR alleging cheating, forgery and related offences under the IPC, seeking recovery of th

NATIONAL SPOT EXCHANGE LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 69414 May 2025

The Supreme Court examined whether secured creditors could claim priority over assets attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Maharashtra Protection of Investors and Depositors Act (MPID Act) by invoking the SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy (RDB) Act. It also considered

M/S AL-CAN EXPORT PVT. LTD.versusPRESTIGE H.M. POLYCONTAINERS LTD. & ORS.

2024 INSC 5009 July 2024Case Partly allowed

The case concerned an auction of land owned by Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Ltd., which was mortgaged to a bank and later assigned to ARCIL. The Tahsildar conducted the auction without observing the mandatory 30‑day notice period and issued the sale certificate and possession to the appellant, Al‑Can Export Pvt. Ltd.,

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR.versusSMT. PRABHA JAIN & ORS.

2025 INSC 958 January 2025Disposed off

The plaintiff, Smt. Prabha Jain, inherited a one‑third share of a plot that was illegally partitioned and sold by her brother-in‑law; the buyer later mortgaged the plot to Central Bank of India, which took possession under the SARFAESI Act. Jain filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the sale deed and mortgage dee

M/S SHRI SENDHUR AGRO & OIL INDUSTRIESversusKOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

2025 INSC 3286 March 2025Disposed off

Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries, a proprietorship based in Coimbatore, defaulted on an overdraft facility and Kotak Mahindra Bank filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Judicial Magistrate Court at Chandigarh. The petitioner sought transfer of the criminal case to a court in Tam

M/S PRO KNITSversusTHE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CANARA BANK & ORS.

2024 INSC 5651 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, MSME borrowers, challenged the classification of their loan accounts as non‑performing assets by Canara Bank and other banks, contending that the banks had violated the procedural framework prescribed in the Government’s 29 May 2015 Notification under Section 9 of the MSMED Act. The High Court had held

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search