TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a secured creditor can invoke sections 13 and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 after obtaining a recovery certificate under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; (ii) Whether a borrower ceases to be a borrower under the Act after an order is passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal; (iii) Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate in a non-Metropolitan area is competent to exercise powers under section 14 of the Act.
Issue (i): Whether a secured creditor can invoke sections 13 and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 after obtaining a recovery certificate under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Analysis: The remedies under the two enactments were treated as concurrent. Section 13 authorises enforcement of a security interest without intervention of the Court or Tribunal, and section 37 makes the Act additional to, and not in derogation of, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The fact that a recovery certificate had already been issued did not bar recourse to the secured asset enforcement mechanism. The proviso to section 19 did not compel a different result on these facts.
Conclusion: The secured creditor was entitled to invoke sections 13 and 14, and the objection was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether a borrower ceases to be a borrower under the Act after an order is passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Analysis: The definition of borrower and the scheme of the Act show that the status of borrower depends on the subsisting financial assistance, guarantee, mortgage or pledge, and not on the mere passing of a recovery order. Passing of an order by the Tribunal and issuance of a recovery certificate do not extinguish the borrower's status where the liability remains unpaid. The Act and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 operate in addition to each other.
Conclusion: The petitioner did not cease to be a borrower, and the contention was rejected.
Issue (iii): Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate in a non-Metropolitan area is competent to exercise powers under section 14 of the Act.
Analysis: In a non-Metropolitan area, the Chief Judicial Magistrate occupies the position corresponding to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in a Metropolitan area and is vested with the same powers for the purpose of the Act. Accordingly, the objection that the Chief Judicial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction under section 14 was unsustainable.
Conclusion: The Chief Judicial Magistrate was competent to act under section 14, and the objection failed.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order suffered from no illegality or irregularity, all three questions were answered against the petitioner, and the petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: The enforcement remedies under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 are available in addition to remedies under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and a recovery certificate under the latter does not by itself bar action under sections 13 and 14 of the former.
TaxTMI 
