SARFAESI Act: All India Annual Digest 2025

Supreme CourtOrder VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint With Multiple Reliefs Cannot Be Rejected Just Because Some Reliefs Are Barred : Supreme CourtCase Title: CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR. VERSUS SMT. PRABHA JAIN & ORS.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 96The Supreme Court observed that when a Plaint includes multiple reliefs, it cannot be rejected solely because one of the reliefs is barred by law, as long as the other reliefs remain valid. According to the Court, the plaint cannot be partially rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. “If the civil court is of the view that one relief (say relief A) is not barred by law but is of the view that Relief B is barred by law, the civil court must not make any observations to the effect that relief B is barred by law and must leave that issue undecided in an Order VII, Rule 11 application. This is because if the civil court cannot reject a plaint partially, then by the same logic, it ought not to make any adverse observations against relief B.”, the Court observed. The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was hearing a case under the SARFAESI Act in which the plaintiff sought three reliefs in a suit filed before the Civil Court. Two of the reliefs, concerning ownership and title over the suit property used as collateral for a bank-sanctioned loan, were not barred by law, and the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide on them. However, the third relief, which pertained to the restoration of possession under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, was barred by law, as such an application must be filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), not the Civil Court.SARFAESI | DRT Cannot Restore Possession Of Secured Asset To A Person Who Isn't The Borrower Or Possessor : Supreme CourtCase Title: CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR. VERSUS SMT. PRABHA JAIN & ORS. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 96The Supreme Court noted that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is not authorized under the SARFAESI Act to "hand over" possession of the secured asset to an individual who was neither the borrower nor the possessor of the asset. It further stated that the DRT lacks the authority to "restore" possession of secured assets to an individual who is neither the borrower nor in possession of the assets. The Court clarified that a plea for the handover or restoration of a secured asset by an individual, who is neither a borrower nor in possession of the asset, is maintainable before the civil court.A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was deciding an issue of whether an individual, who neither possessed nor borrowed the secured asset, would be entitled to claim restoration of the secured assets under Section 17(3) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.SARFAESI Act | Appeal Against Every DRT Order Doesn't Require Pre-Deposit : Supreme CourtCase Details: M/S SUNSHINE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS v. HDFC BANK LIMITED THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER & ORS. |CIVIL APPEAL NO.5290/2025 Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 459The Supreme Court recently expressed a prima facie view that appeals filed against procedural orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) do not require pre-deposit as per Section 18 (appeal to the appellate tribunal) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The present appeal arises from the Bombay High Court's order dated March 19, 2024, whereby it affirmed an order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). The matter arises from two interim applications filed by the Appellants, auction purchasers, to be impleaded in the securitization application pending before DRT. The DRT rejected their application for impleaded, against which they approached the DRAT under Section 18, and they were asked to pre-deposit Rs. 125 crores.Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against HDFC Bank Official Over Auction SaleCase Details : SIVAKUMAR v. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. SLP(CRL) NOS.5815-5816 OF 2023 Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 478The Supreme Court recently quashed a criminal case against an official of the HDFC Bank, after noting that he was not the "authorised officer" when the auction sale in question was held. The criminal case, alleging the offences of cheating and forgery, was filed in Tamil Nadu over the allegation that the Bank had sold in auction a property which was previously acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.S. 11 SARFAESI Act | DRT Can't Decide Disputes Between Banks Over Secured Assets; Must Be Referred To Arbitration : Supreme CourtCase Title: BANK OF INDIA VERSUS M/S SRI NANGLI RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 616In a significant ruling under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (“Act”), the Supreme Court today (May 23) held that inter-creditor disputes (between secured creditors) must be resolved through arbitration under Section 11 of the Act read with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”). Unlike the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which requires a written...

SARFAESI Act: All India Annual Digest 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags