Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

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

107 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

JAGDISH SINGHversusHEERALAL AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 73430 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Bank of India advanced a loan secured by equitable mortgages on several properties, the title deeds of which were deposited with the bank. After the borrowers defaulted, the bank invoked the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and aucti

ICICI BANK LIMITEDversusOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF APS STAR INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS.

2010 INSC 66330 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

ICICI Bank assigned a portfolio of non‑performing assets (NPAs) worth Rs 52.45 crore to Kotak Mahindra Bank under a deed of assignment. One of the borrowers, APS Star Industries Ltd., entered liquidation and Kotak sought to be substituted as the secured creditor in the winding‑up proceedings. The Company Court and the

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANKversusMR. VIJAY SITARAM DANDNAIK & ANR.

2022 INSC 88730 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Punjab National Bank (PNB) filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against Jailaxmi Sugar Products Pvt Ltd, alleging default and seeking initiation of a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) issued a certificate of recovery on 1 November 20

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDversusA. BALAKRISHNAN & ANR.

2022 INSC 63030 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank (the appellant) sought initiation of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Prasad Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd. (the corporate debtor) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The corporate debtor had stood as guarantor for loans to three borrower

AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ANOTHERversusMATHEW K. C.

2018 INSC 7130 January 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant bank sought to set aside an interim order of the Kerala High Court that stayed proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act after the borrower, Mathew K.C., filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking regularisation of his loan. The Supreme Court examined whether the writ petition was maintaina

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

M/S MADRAS PETROCHEM LTD. & ANRversusBIFR& ORS.

2016 INSC 10729 January 2016Dismissed

Madras Petrochem Ltd. and another filed appeals challenging a Delhi High Court order that stayed the winding‑up of the company before the BIFR. The core dispute was whether the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) overrides the Sick Industri

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

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERSversusM/S A.J. INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD AND ANR.

2023 INSC 44628 April 2023Disposed off

The State of Himachal Pradesh challenged the High Court's declaration that section 16‑B of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 was ultra‑vires the Constitution and the Banking Companies Act. The High Court had made this declaration while hearing writ petitions that later became infructuous because the bank

SMT. HAR DEVI ASNANIversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

2011 INSC 71827 September 2011Disposed off

The appellant, Har Devi Asnani, purchased a residential plot for Rs 18 lakh and paid stamp duty of Rs 1,17,000, but the Sub‑Registrar re‑valued the land at Rs 2,58,44,260, leading the Additional Collector to demand a deficit stamp duty of Rs 15,70,000. The appellant challenged the demand in the High Court, which dismis

M/S R. D. JAIN AND CO.versusCAPITAL FIRST LTD. & ORS.

2022 INSC 75427 July 2022Dismissed

The borrower, M/s R.D. Jain & Co., challenged the Bombay High Court’s interpretation that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) and District Magistrate (DM) under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are not persona designata and that the terms include their additional counterparts. The secured creditor, Capital First Ltd.

ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITEDversusUV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

2021 INSC 79426 November 2021Dismissed

Electrosteel Castings Ltd., a guarantor, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that an assignment deed executed by the financial creditor in favour of UV Asset Reconstruction Co. was fraudulent and that the assignee was not a secured creditor. The suit was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that Section 34 of

BALKRISHNA RAMA TARLE DEAD THR LRS & ANRversusPHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS

2022 INSC 102226 September 2022Dismissed

The petitioners, legal heirs of the deceased Balkrishna Rama Tarle, claimed tenancy rights over part of a mortgaged property and challenged the District Magistrate's refusal to assist the secured creditor, Phoenix Arc Private Limited, in taking possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The magistrate had conditi

ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. (INDIA) LTD.versusCHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY

2022 INSC 47726 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. acquired a defaulted loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce through an assignment agreement that was registered as a single instrument. The deed contained a Schedule 3 draft of a Power of Attorney (PoA) authorising the assignee to sell immovable property, leading the revenue a

UCO BANK AND ANR.versusDIPAK DEBBARMA & ORS.

2016 INSC 106425 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

UCO Bank issued a sale notification under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 to auction mortgaged property. The borrowers, members of Scheduled Tribes, challenged the sale alleging that Section 187 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 19

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

THE STOCK EXCHANGE, BOMBAYversusV. S. KANDALGAONKAR & ORS.

2014 INSC 67825 September 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) declared member Suresh D. Shah a defaulter and the Income Tax Department sought to attach the proceeds of his membership card and securities under s.226(3) of the Income Tax Act. BSE argued that a membership card is a personal, non‑transferable privilege and that its lien under Rule 43 m

NKGSB COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITEDversusSUBIR CHAKRAVARTY & ORS.

2022 INSC 23825 February 2022Disposed off

The NKGSB Cooperative Bank, a secured creditor, sought possession of a mortgaged flat after the borrowers defaulted on a loan, invoking Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) appointed an advocate commissioner to take possession of the asset, a move upheld by several High Courts but str

M/S. TRIPOWER ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITEDversusSTATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 36024 April 2020Case Partly allowed

The borrower defaulted on a loan secured by a mortgage offered by the guarantor, leading State Bank of India to initiate SARFAESI proceedings and eventually auction the secured assets, which were purchased by Tripower Enterprises. The bank sought the return of original title documents deposited with the Debt Recovery T

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANKversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2022 INSC 23024 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Excise Commissioner ordered the confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery of Rathi Ispat Ltd. (RIL) under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in 2007, even though that rule had been omitted from the statute by a 2000 notification. RIL had earlier mortgaged the same assets to Punjab Nati

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

S. KARTHIK & ORS.versusN. SUBHASH CHAND JAIN & ORS.

2021 INSC 53423 September 2021Dismissed

The appellants, guarantors of a loan of Rs.21.14 crore extended to Ace Concrete Pvt. Ltd., contested the sale of four mortgaged properties by Indian Overseas Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The bank issued a first sale notice on 21‑Jan‑2012 with a 30‑day period, but the sale was stayed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANKversusD. VISALAKSHI AND ANR.

2019 INSC 106723 September 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in non‑metropolitan areas could entertain a secured creditor's application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) for taking possession of secured ass

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

INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITEDversusM/S. DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 20023 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd (appellant) sought to enforce loan recovery against Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd and others under the SARFAESI Act after the original lender, Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd (IBFSL), merged into Indiabulls Housing Finance. The High Court held that SARFAESI could not be invoked because

STANDARD CHARTERED BANKversusV. NOBLE KUMAR & OTHERS

2013 INSC 55722 August 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act could obtain possession of a secured asset by invoking Section 14 without first attempting possession under Section 13(4), and whether such a route would defeat the borrower's right to appeal under Section 17. It held that the creditor may dir

GM, SRI SIDDESHWARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ANR.versusSRI IKBAL & ORS.

2013 INSC 55622 August 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a sale of mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act where the auction purchaser paid only 25% of the price initially and the balance after 11 months. The borrower had sent a letter consenting to accept the balance payment and authorising issuance of a sale certificate, which the Bank accepted

AXIS BANKversusSBS ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2016 INSC 33422 April 2016Dismissed

Axis Bank appealed against the Gujarat High Court’s order allowing SBS Organics Private Limited to withdraw its appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) and to get back the Rs 50 lakh pre‑deposit made under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The Supreme Court examined whether such a pre‑deposit constitute

VASU P. SHETTYversusM/S HOTEL VANDANA PALACE & ORS.

2014 INSC 30722 April 2014Dismissed

The borrower defaulted on a loan and the bank, under the SARFAESI Act, took possession of the mortgaged hotel and attempted to sell it by public auction. The auction purchaser, Vasu P. Shetty, obtained the highest bid, but the High Court set aside the sale because the public notice did not give the statutorily required

SESH NATH SINGH & ANR.versusBAIDYABATI SHEORAPHULI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ANR.

2021 INSC 19922 March 2021Dismissed

The petitioners, Sesh Nath Singh and others, challenged the National Company Law Tribunal's (NCLT) order admitting a Section 7 application by Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co‑operative Bank to initiate corporate insolvency resolution against the corporate debtor. The issue was whether the three‑year limitation period for fili

CELIR LLPversusBAFNA MOTORS (MUMBAI) PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2023 INSC 83821 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The borrowers defaulted on a loan secured by a mortgage over land in Navi Mumbai, prompting Union Bank of India to initiate SARFAESI proceedings and eventually conduct a public auction. The appellant, CELIR LLP, was the highest bidder, paid the full bid amount, and received a sale confirmation, but the bank withheld th

M. D. FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusHERO FINCORP LTD.

2017 INSC 97621 September 2017Dismissed

The appellants borrowed money from the respondent, securing the loan with seven immovable properties. Their loan account was declared a non‑performing asset and the parties’ contract contained an arbitration clause, leading the respondent to initiate arbitration while also issuing notices under Section 13 of the SARFAE

RAKESH BIRANI (D) THROUGH LRS.versusPREM NARAIN SEHGAL & ANR.

2018 INSC 25321 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The auction of an immovable property was held on 14 February 2013, where the appellant was the highest bidder and paid the required earnest money and 25% of the sale price. The secured creditor confirmed the sale by letter on 27 February 2013, after which the appellant deposited the remaining 75% on 13 March 2013, with

SHAKEENA & ANR.versusBANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 92220 August 2019Dismissed

The appellants had taken term loans from Bank of India which later became non‑performing, prompting the bank to invoke sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and take constructive possession of the mortgaged property. After a public auction on 19 December 2005, the highest bidder was issued a sale certificate on

INDIAN BANK & ANR.versusK PAPPIREDDIYAR & ANR.

2018 INSC 62620 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Indian Bank granted a term loan to Yelagiri Dairy Farm and secured it by mortgaging 6.10 acres of land. When the loan became a non‑performing asset, the bank invoked the SARFAESI Act, took possession and sold the property. The borrowers contended that the land was agricultural and therefore exempt from the Act, while t

VISHAL N. KALSARIAversusBANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2016 INSC 7620 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a tenant, challenged the Bank of India's attempt to take possession of a mortgaged premises under the SARFAESI Act after the landlord defaulted on a loan. The Court examined whether Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, a non obstante clause, could override the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and allow the

CHINA DEVELOPMENT BANKversusDOHA BANK Q.P.S.C. & ORS.

2024 INSC 102919 December 2024

The Supreme Court examined whether several foreign banks that had extended loans to Reliance entities could be treated as "financial creditors" of Reliance Infratel Ltd (the corporate debtor) under Section 5(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The dispute arose because the corporate debtor, Reliance Communi

K. C. NINANversusKERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.

2023 INSC 56019 May 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a batch of appeals concerning whether electricity arrears of a previous owner can be recovered from a subsequent owner who acquired the premises through auction or other transfers. It held that the duty of a distribution licensee to supply electricity under Section 43 of the Electricity Act,

ITC LIMITEDversusBLUE COAST HOTELS LTD. & ORS.

2018 INSC 24119 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a dispute between ITC Limited, the auction purchaser of a five‑star hotel, and Blue Coast Hotels Ltd., the original borrower, under the SARFAESI Act. The borrower argued that the creditor (IFCI) violated s.13(3A) by not replying to its representation for loan rescheduling and that the inclusion of agr

MRS. PRIYANKASRIVASTAVAANDANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 23919 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a series of criminal complaints filed by borrower Prakash Kumar Bajaj against senior officials of Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Ltd. after the bank invoked the SARFAESI Act to recover a defaulted housing loan. The borrower, having settled the loan through a one‑time settlement, repeate

MR. ANAND RAO KORADA RESOLUTION PROFESSIONALversusM/S. VARSHA FABRICS (P) LTD. & ORS.

2019 INSC 125918 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose when the Odisha High Court ordered the auction of a large parcel of land belonging to Hirakud Industrial Works Ltd. (the corporate debtor) while a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had already decl

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA (THROUGH STRESSED ASSETS STABILIZATION FUND CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)versusSUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 74618 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI), as a secured creditor, sought to enforce its charge over imported machinery that had been stored in a private bonded warehouse and remained unpaid of customs duty. The company was wound up on 1 December 2003, and the Official Liquidator applied for possession of the good

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANKversusM/S RCM INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 58418 May 2022Dismissed

Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) had taken possession of two secured assets of M/s RCM Infrastructure Ltd. and conducted an e‑auction under the SARFAESI Act, selling the assets to bidders who paid 25% of the price and were later allowed to pay the balance by 8 March 2019. The corporate debtor filed a petition under Section 1

GOVIND KUMAR SHARMA & ANRversusBANK OF BARODA & ORS

2024 INSC 32618 April 2024Disposed off

The borrowers defaulted on a loan from Bank of Baroda, which initiated SARFAESI proceedings and conducted an open auction of the mortgaged premises. The appellants, who were tenants of the borrowers, became the highest bidders and were issued a sale certificate, thereby converting their status to owners. The borrowers

PUNJAB AND SIND BANKversusFRONTLINE CORPORATION LTD

2023 INSC 38618 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, had mortgaged a suit property to Frontline Corporation Ltd. after the latter defaulted on loans. The bank issued notices under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and took possession, while the borrower filed a civil suit for specific performance of a settlement agreement and obtained

NARAYAN CHANDRA GHOSHversusUCO BANK & ORS.

2011 INSC 22218 March 2011Disposed off

Narayan Chandra Ghosh, a borrower, appealed to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal exempted him from the mandatory pre‑deposit of 50% of the debt, as required by the second proviso of Section 18, and the Calcutta High Court set aside t

BANK OF BARODA & ANRversusMBL INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED & ORS.

2022 INSC 5318 January 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 29A(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which bars persons who have executed an enforceable guarantee that has been invoked by a creditor from being a resolution applicant. The Court held that the disqualification arises when the guarantee is invoked, applies

HEMRAJ RATNAKAR SALIANversusHDFC BANK LTD. & ORS.

2021 INSC 40817 August 2021Leave Granted & Dismissed

HDFC Bank granted a loan to borrowers who mortgaged a flat as security. When the borrowers defaulted, the bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of the secured asset. The appellant, Hemraj Ratnakar Salian, claimed to be a tenant of the flat since June 2012 and sought protection

DOMNIC ALEX FERNANDES (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2017 INSC 76317 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, bona‑fide tenants of a property owned by Krishna Budha Gawde, challenged the forfeiture of that property under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA). Gawde had been detained under COFEPOSA and his property was declared “illegally acquired” and forfei

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusANAND SONBHADRA

2022 INSC 57817 May 2022Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), as the lessor in a 90‑year lease of land for a residential project, could be treated as a financial creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court held that the lease does not qualify as a financial lease unde

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIAversusM/S ALLWYN ALLOYS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2018 INSC 53617 May 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The bank created an equitable mortgage over a flat by taking a loan from the directors of Allwyn Alloys. When the loan defaulted, the DRT and DRAT upheld the bank’s security and rejected the claim of the flat’s occupants (respondents 5 and 6) who relied on a later unregistered MOU. The High Court, however, set aside th

POWER MACHINES INDIA LIMITEDversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

2017 INSC 35517 April 2017Dismissed

Power Machines India Ltd obtained an arbitral award under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 directing it to pay a sum to Lakshmi Engineering Industries. The State of Madhya Pradesh, invoking Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh MSME Facilitation Council Rules, 2006, sought recovery of the award amou

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusSANTOSH GUPTA AND ANR. ETC.

2016 INSC 115716 December 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) could be applied in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The High Court had held that key provisions of SARFAESI were ultra‑vires Parliament because they conflicted with Sectio

VARIMADUGU OBI REDDYversusB. SREENIVASULU & ORS.

2022 INSC 120716 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents defaulted on three loan facilities secured by an equitable mortgage and the bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings, eventually conducting an e‑auction of the mortgaged property. The respondents challenged the auction on two grounds: a typographical error in the door number in the auction notice and the auc

S. VALLIAMMAI & OTHERSversusS. RAMANATHAN & ANOTHER

2026 INSC 37216 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, the wife and daughters of a deceased property owner, filed a second suit challenging a power of attorney and seeking injunctions, after having earlier filed a first suit for similar reliefs. The defendants moved to reject the second plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, arguing that the suit was

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK PVT. LIMITEDversusAMBUJ A. KASLIWAL & ORS.

2021 INSC 9016 February 2021Case Partly allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank appealed against a Delhi High Court order that allowed guarantors Ambuj Kasliwal and others to file an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) without making any pre‑deposit of the debt due, as required under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDBA). The

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

VIDYA DROLIA AND OTHERSversusDURGA TRADING CORPORATION

2020 INSC 69714 December 2020Reference answered

The Supreme Court of India addressed two interconnected issues: whether landlord-tenant disputes governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are arbitrable, and the scope of judicial review under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The case arose from a tenancy agreement containing an ar

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusV. RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR.

2018 INSC 71114 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

State Bank of India (SBI) sought recovery of a loan from a corporate debtor whose managing director, V. Ramakrishnan, had also given a personal guarantee. After the corporate debtor defaulted, SBI invoked SARFAESI provisions and the debtor filed an insolvency petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016

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

J. RAJIV SUBRAMANIYAN & ANR.versusM/S. PANDIYAS & ORS.

2014 INSC 19614 March 2014Disposed off

The borrowers (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) defaulted on loans from State Bank of India, leading the bank to invoke the SARFAESI Act and issue demand and possession notices. The bank later approved a private‑treaty sale of the mortgaged immovable assets to the appellants for a consideration barely above the reserve price.

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDversusNARENDRA JAYANTILAL TRIVEDI & ANR.

2022 INSC 57213 May 2022Disposed off

Kotak Mahindra Bank sought recovery of a loan defaulted since 1986, invoking the SARFAESI Act after the debt had been assigned to it. The borrower, Narendra Jayantilal Trivedi, repeatedly filed various applications and a writ petition to stall the bank's recovery proceedings, which the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Hi

R. SAVITHRI NAIDUversusM/S THE COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2026 INSC 15012 February 2026Dismissed

The dispute arose from a sale of cotton bales between CCI and M/s Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles Ltd, which led to an arbitral award for recovery of money in 2001. The award was challenged but the challenge was dismissed in 2013. Subsequently, ICICI Bank, as a secured creditor, attached the debtor's properties under the SARFA

HILL PROPERTIES LTD.versusUNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 60711 September 2013Dismissed

Hill Properties Ltd., the appellant, claimed ownership of Flat No.23 in Mumbai, asserting that the flat was allotted to its shareholder (Respondent No.5) who could only occupy it and could not mortgage it without the company's consent under its Articles of Association. Respondent No.5 had created an equitable mortgage

M/S. R.S. INFRA-TRANSMISSION LTD.versusSAURININDUBHAI PATEL AND ORS.

2022 INSC 67211 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from an auction sale of two immovable properties attached under a recovery certificate issued by IndusInd Bank. The judgment debtor (borrower) filed an application under Rule 60 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, depositing the amount specified in the sale proclamation along with pena

M. SURESH KUMAR REDDYversusCANARA BANK & ORS.

2023 INSC 52111 May 2023Dismissed

Canara Bank (successor to Syndicate Bank) filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against its corporate debtor, Kranthi Edifice Pvt. Ltd., alleging default on a secured overdraft facility and bank guarantees. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitted the petition a

BANK OF BARODAversusM/S KARWA TRADING COMPANY & ANR.

2022 INSC 16910 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Bank of Baroda granted a term loan and cash credit facility to M/s Karwa Trading Company secured by two mortgaged properties. After the borrower defaulted, the bank invoked the SARFAESI Act, took symbolic possession, and issued a public auction notice. The borrower filed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI

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.,

DILIP HARIRAMANIversusBANK OF BARODA

2022 INSC 5399 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Bank of Baroda had granted a loan to the partnership firm Global Packaging, which issued three cheques that were later dishonoured for insufficient funds. A complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the authorised signatory Simaiya Hariramani and his partn

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDversusB.P.L. LIMITED

2015 INSC 199 January 2015Dismissed

B.P.L. Ltd., facing severe financial distress, sought approval of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd. (the appellant) was a secured creditor with a hypothecation charge registered against B.P.L. but later argued that a consent arbitratio

STATE BANK OF PATIALAversusMUKESH JAIN & ANR.

2016 INSC 10078 November 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The State Bank of Patiala had advanced a term loan of Rs.8 lakh to Mukesh Jain, who defaulted and the bank invoked the SARFAESI Act, issuing a notice under Section 13(2). Jain challenged the SARFAESI proceedings by filing a civil suit, prompting the bank to move an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC asserti

ANJALI RATHI AND OTHERSversusTODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 4608 September 2021Disposed off

The petitioners, home buyers in a Gurgaon housing project, obtained a refund order with interest from the NCDRC, which was stayed by the Delhi High Court. An operational creditor later initiated a corporate insolvency proceeding against the developer (Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd) under Section 9 of the IBC, le

MAHARAJI EDUCATIONAL TRUSTversusHOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

2017 INSC 12888 May 2017Disposed off

Maharaji Educational Trust borrowed Rs.75 crore from HUDCO and mortgaged six properties. It later exchanged 21 acres of one mortgaged property with Avas Parishad and entered into a sale agreement for the entire 63.45 acres (including the exchanged land) with SGS Constructions, which was subject to an interim injunction

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

PUNJAB & SIND BANKversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2023 INSC 10797 December 2023Dismissed

Punjab & Sind Bank appealed against a High Court order that upheld the State of Punjab's claim of priority over tax dues under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which it alleged superseded the bank's charge on the borrower’s immovable property. The State asserted a first charge under Section 35 of the 2005 Act for

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

DWARIKA PRASADversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

2018 INSC 2106 March 2018Disposed off

The appellant, a guarantor, created an equitable mortgage over his property to secure a loan that later defaulted. The bank invoked the SARFAESI Act and initiated auction proceedings, which the appellant attempted to halt by offering partial payment and filing writ petitions. The High Court stayed the sale until the ap

C. BRIGHTversusTHE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS.

2020 INSC 6335 November 2020Dismissed

The appellant C. Bright challenged a Kerala High Court order that held Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, which obliges a District Magistrate to deliver possession of a secured asset within 30 days (extendable to 60), is a directory provision. The Supreme Court examined the language of the provision, the purpose of the Ac

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDversusKEW PRECISION PARTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

2022 INSC 8005 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., a financial creditor, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to initiate a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd. after the debtor defaulted on loans. The debtor had offered a one‑time settlement on 20 December

BALESHWAR DAYAL JAISWALversusBANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2015 INSC 5455 August 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the Appellate Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act could condone a delay in filing an appeal under Section 18(1). It held that Section 18(2) incorporates the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, including the proviso to Section 20(3) which

PANDURANG GANPATI CHAUGULEversusVISHWASRAO PATIL MURGUD SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED

2020 INSC 3825 May 2020Reference answered

The Court examined whether co‑operative banks, which are societies registered under State legislation, fall within the Union List entry 45 (banking) or the State List entry 32 (co‑operative societies) for the purposes of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

SIDHA NEELKANTH PAPER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANRversusPRUDENT ARC LTD. & OTHERS

2023 INSC 145 January 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined appeals arising from SARFAESI Act proceedings where a borrower (Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries) defaulted on a loan, the secured assets were auctioned, and the auction proceeds exceeded 50% of the claimed debt. The borrower challenged both the steps taken under Section 13(4) and the auction

K. SREEDHARversusM/S RAUS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD & ORS.

2023 INSC 175 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The borrower (M/s Raus Constructions) defaulted on a loan from Indian Bank, leading the bank to invoke the SARFAESI Act, issue possession notices and conduct an e‑auction of the secured properties. The auction purchaser bought one of the properties and the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) confirmed the sale. The borrower

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDversusGIRNAR CORRUGATORS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2023 INSC 125 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., a secured creditor, sought possession of mortgaged assets of One Mission Vivacare under the SARFAESI Act after the borrower defaulted. The District Magistrate ordered possession, but the Naib Tehsildar refused, invoking a recovery award under the MSMED Act. The High Court Division Bench held t

THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.V. BABULAL LADE & ORS.versusBABULAL LADE & ORS.

2019 INSC 13184 December 2019Disposed off

The Maharashtra State Co‑operative Bank Ltd. (the Bank) took possession of mortgaged property of Vainganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (the Karkhana) after the Karkhana defaulted on a loan and later sold the property to Wainganga Sugar and Power Ltd. The Karkhana’s employees obtained a recovery certificate under the

ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITEDversusS. P. VELAYUTHAM & ORS

2022 INSC 5094 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., challenged the registration of a sale deed executed by S.P. Velayutham in favour of his son, arguing that the Sub‑Registrar had failed to verify that the power of attorney (PoA) presented did not authorize a sale. The High Court’s Division Bench set aside the Si

MIS. BHARAT STEEL TUBES LTD. ETC.versusIFCI LTD. & ORS.

2011 INSC 2574 April 2011Dismissed

Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. challenged a Delhi High Court order that held IFCI Ltd. to be a "public financial institution" under Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 and therefore entitled to enforce a security interest under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioner argued that the Central Government no longer held 51% of I

ARCE POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusM/S. ALPHINE PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 8203 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Arce Polymers (the second purchaser) and the bank appealed against a High Court order that set aside the SARFAESI proceedings against the borrower Alphine Pharmaceuticals. The borrower had repeatedly sought moratoriums and restructuring, which the bank entertained, but ultimately proceeded with auction of

EUREKA FORBES LIMITEDversusALLAHABAD BANK AND ORS.

2010 INSC 2683 May 2010Case Partly allowed

Eureka Forbes Ltd. granted a licence to two respondents to use its factory premises. When the licencees failed to pay fees, Eureka sold the stock in the premises, which was hypothecated to Allahabad Bank, without the bank's consent. The bank sued Eureka and the licencees for recovery of the hypothecated goods. The issu

HARSHAD GOVARDHAN SONDAGARversusINTERNATIONAL ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

2014 INSC 9553 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who were tenants of premises mortgaged to banks, challenged the seizure of those premises by the secured creditors under the SARFAESI Act. The Supreme Court examined whether a lease made by the mortgagor, either before or after the mortgage, remains valid and binding on the secured creditor, and whether

PHOENIX ARC PVT. LTD.versusKETULBHAI RAMUBHAI PATEL

2021 INSC 593 February 2021Dismissed

L&T Infrastructure Finance advanced a Rs 40 crore loan to Doshion Ltd., with Doshion Veolia Water Solutions Pvt Ltd (the corporate debtor) providing a non‑disposal undertaking and pledging 40,160 shares of Gondwana Engineers Ltd as security. L&T assigned its rights to Phoenix ARC Pvt Ltd, which claimed to be a financia

CANARA BANKversusM. AMARENDER REDDY & ANR.

2017 INSC 12702 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Canara Bank, the secured creditor, sought to enforce its security over an immovable property pledged by the guarantor M. Amaren... after the borrower defaulted. The bank issued a possession notice, valued the property, and then served a notice of intention to sell together with a public e‑auction notice, fixing the sal

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

M/S. OPTIEMUS INFRACOM LTD. ETC.versusM/S. ISHAN SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2012 INSC 3131 August 2012Disposed off

The appellants challenged a writ petition filed by the respondents before the Allahabad High Court that sought to quash an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) Delhi approving the auction of the respondents' property under the SARFAESI Act. The High Court, after finding no ground to interfere with the DRT order, n

MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL & ANR.versusAXIS BANK LTD. & ANR.

2019 INSC 7071 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, home buyers, filed suits against the builder and Axis Bank seeking specific performance, possession and other reliefs concerning flats in the Orbit Heaven project. Axis Bank moved a notice of motion under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC to have the plaint rejected only against it, invoking the bar under S

A. NAVINCHANDRA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED & ORS.

2021 INSC 1281 March 2021Dismissed

A. Navinchandra Steels Private Limited, an operational creditor, challenged the admission of a Section 7 petition filed by SREI Equipment Finance Limited before the NCLT, arguing that a winding‑up petition against the same debtor was already pending in the Bombay High Court and that the Companies Act provisions should

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