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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether proceedings under the SARFAESI and recovery regime could be maintained against a person who was neither the borrower nor the guarantor and who had not succeeded to the guarantor's estate, and whether such proceedings were without jurisdiction as against him.
Analysis: The liability under the SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act must arise from a financial relationship, namely, a borrower, assignee, agent, guarantor, or a person who has stepped into the guarantor's shoes by succession to the estate. The notice issued by the Bank did not invoke the guarantee against the petitioner. The materials showed that the legal representatives who had succeeded to the estate were separately proceeded against, while the petitioner had not inherited any property or liability from the deceased guarantor. In the absence of such succession or financial nexus, no enforceable liability could be fastened on the petitioner, and the Tribunal could not assume jurisdiction against him.
Conclusion: The proceedings against the petitioner were without jurisdiction and were liable to be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings under the SARFAESI and recovery laws can be maintained only against a person having a legally cognisable financial liability arising from borrower, guarantor, or succession to the guarantor's estate; absent such nexus, the proceedings are without jurisdiction.