The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-XVIII]

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Fees paid by director does not attract exemption under Clause 4 of schedule III of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and SubBrokers) Regulations, 1992. GPSK Capital Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Mantri Finance Ltd.) v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 222 : (2023) 2 SCR 737 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 - Auction cannot be stayed just because the sale agreement holder offered to pay dues, when the borrower hasn't invoked S.13(8). G. Vikram Kumar v State Bank of Hyderabad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 394 : AIR 2023 SC 2359 : (2023) 5 SCR 624 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - Rule 9(5) of SARFAESI Rules cannot be pressed into service since the auction purchaser was not informed regarding the proceedings pending before DRT at the time of auction or even thereafter - Directs refund of the deposit forfeited by the bank. Mohd. Shariq v Punjab National Bank, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 308 Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Writ petitions in SARFAESI matters - Approaching the High Court for the consideration of an offer by the borrower is also frowned upon by this Court. A writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ. In the absence of any legal right, the Court cannot exercise the said power. More circumspection is required in a financial transaction, particularly when one of the parties would not come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13(2), 13(4), 18 - Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993; Section 2(g) - Whatever amount is mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, in case steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) against the secured assets are under challenge before the DRT will be the 'debt due' within the meaning of proviso to Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act - In case of challenge to the sale of the secured assets, the amount mentioned in the sale certificate will have to be considered while determining the amount of pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act - In a case where both are under challenge, namely, steps taken under Section 13(4) against the secured assets and also the auction sale of the secured assets, in that case, the “debt due” shall mean any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person, whichever is higher -The borrower can take the benefit of the amount received by the creditor in an auction sale only if he unequivocally accepts the sale. In a case where the borrower also challenges the auction sale and does not accept the same and also challenges the steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) of the SARFAESI Act with respect to secured assets, the borrower has to deposit 50% of the amount claimed by the secured creditor along with interest. (Para 13-16) Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Prudent ARC Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 11 : AIR 2023 SC 368 : (2023) 1 SCR 553 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14 - Magistrate's Order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be quashed by High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC when there is a remedy under the SARFAESI Act. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. V. Ganesh Murthy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 513 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 26E - Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006; Sections 15 - 23 - 'Priority' conferred / provided under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act would prevail over the recovery mechanism of the MSMED Act. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12 : AIR 2023 SC 268 : (2023) 3 SCC 210 : (2023) 1 SCR 873 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14, 17 - Neither District Magistrate nor Metropolitan Magistrate would have any jurisdiction to adjudicate and/or decide the dispute even between the secured creditor and the debtor. If any person is aggrieved by the steps under Section 13(4) / order passed under Section 14, then the aggrieved person has to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of appeal / application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 10) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt....

The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-XVIII]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-XVIII]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers