Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

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

16 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

M/S. SARDAR ASSOCIATES & ORS.versusPUNJAB & SINDH BANK & ORS.

2009 INSC 98931 July 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, borrowers of a public sector bank, sought a one‑time settlement of their non‑performing loan under RBI guidelines, offering to pay Rs 345.31 lacs, but the bank demanded a higher amount and refused. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal directed the bank to settle as per the RBI scheme, a decision later s

BHARAT STEEL TUBES LIMITEDversusIFCI LIMITED

2010 INSC 83730 November 2010Disposed off

Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. had borrowed money from Punjab National Bank and entered into a one‑time settlement, paying only part of the amount. It later engaged Assets Care Enterprises Ltd. (ACE) to pay the balance, and ACE assigned its rights to IFCI Ltd. IFCI invoked the SARFAESI Act to enforce security and sought aucti

PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION P. LTD.versusM/S. HARYANACONCAST LIMITED &ANR.

2015 INSC 94729 December 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether a Company Court or an Official Liquidator can control the sale of secured assets by a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act when the borrower is a company under winding up. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Ltd, the secured creditor, sought to enforce its security over the land of Harya

AGARWAL TRACOM PVT. LTD.versusPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.

2017 INSC 114627 November 2017Dismissed

Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. purchased assets of a defaulting borrower at a public auction conducted by Punjab National Bank (PNB) under the SARFAESI Act. After failing to pay subsequent installments, the bank forfeited Agarwal's deposit pursuant to Rule 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Agarwal chal

UNITED BANK OF INDIAversusSATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS

2010 INSC 42826 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

United Bank of India (the appellant) issued notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and obtained an order under Section 14 against guarantor Satyawati Tondon, without first taking action against the borrower, Pawan Color Lab. The guarantor filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking an injunction

MRS. LEELAMMA MATHEWversusM/S INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & ORS.

2022 INSC 121417 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Mrs. Leelamma Mathew purchased a secured property advertised as 54 cents in an auction conducted by Indian Overseas Bank under the SARFAESI Act. After paying the full consideration, she received possession of only 39.60 cents, the remaining 14.40 cents having been transferred earlier by the original debtor. She sued th

M/S SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS.versusNAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP & ANR. ETC. ETC.

2023 INSC 37917 April 2023Disposed off

The appellants, South Indian Bank Ltd. and others, appealed against the Kerala High Court’s orders allowing borrowers to defer loan repayment under the SARFAESI Act. The borrowers had filed writ petitions under Article 226 challenging notices issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, even though the De

ICICI BANKversusSHANTI DEVI SHARMA ANO ORS.

2008 INSC 68615 May 2008Disposed off

The respondents alleged that their son committed suicide after ICICI Bank's recovery agents forcibly repossessed his motorcycle, causing humiliation. A writ petition was filed seeking police action against the bank. The Delhi High Court ordered police reports, found them unsatisfactory, and directed an expeditious inve

BAJARANG SHYAMSUNDER AGARWALversusCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR.

2019 INSC 101711 September 2019Disposed off

The appellant, who claimed to be a tenant of a flat mortgaged by the borrower to Central Bank of India, sought to stay the bank’s possession of the secured asset under the SARFAESI Act. The bank had issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and obtained an order under Section 14 for physical possession. T

PHR INVENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETYversusUCO BANK AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 29710 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The borrower defaulted on a loan from UCO Bank, which led to an auction of four mortgaged properties; PHR Invent Educational Society (the appellant) was the highest bidder and paid the full consideration, after which the sale was confirmed and registered. The borrower filed a securitization application under the SARFAE

AUTHORISED OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIAversusC. NATARAJAN & ANR

2023 INSC 34110 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State Bank of India, as authorized officer, conducted an e‑auction of a secured asset of a defaulting borrower. The highest bidder, C. Natarajan, paid 25% of the sale price but failed to pay the balance within the extended deadline and sought further extensions, which were refused. The officer forfeited the 25% dep

KANAIYALAL LALCHAND SACHDEV AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2011 INSC 1067 February 2011Dismissed

The State Bank of India advanced a Rs. 4.5 crore loan to the appellants on an equitable mortgage and, after default, issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The bank then filed an application under Section 14 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which ordered possession of the mortgaged property a

G. VIKRAM KUMARversusSTATE BANK OF HYDERABAD & ORS.

2023 INSC 4752 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The borrower (G. Vikram Kumar) failed to repay a loan to State Bank of Hyderabad, which invoked Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and attached the borrower's properties. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) allowed the bank to sell the properties but excluded seven flats; Flat No.6401 was not among them. The borrower enter

AUTHORISED OFFICER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusSHANMUGAVELU

2024 INSC 802 February 2024Disposed off

The Central Bank of India conducted an e‑auction of a secured asset under the SARFAESI Act and the successful bidder, Shanmugavelu, deposited 25% earnest‑money. After being granted a 90‑day extension, he failed to pay the balance and the bank forfeited the entire deposit under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules. Shanmugav

PUNJAB AND SIND BANKversusM/S. ALLIED BEVERAGE COMPANY PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2010 INSC 6651 October 2010Dismissed

Punjab and Sino Bank had granted cash credit facilities to Allied Beverage Company, which later became a non‑performing asset. The bank recovered the dues through the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which awarded interest at 18% per annum with monthly rests. The High Court modified this order, reducing the pendente lite and f

EXCEL DEALCOMM PRIVATE LIMITEDversusASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED & ORS.

2015 INSC 2811 April 2015Dismissed

Excel Dealcomm Pvt Ltd entered a private treaty agreement with Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd (ARCIL) for the sale of immovable and movable assets under the SARFAESI Act. Excel filed a suit for specific performance in the Calcutta High Court, seeking issuance of a sale certificate that would effect transfer o

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