Assignee cannot rely on prior Section 14 SARFAESI order after assignment; fresh application required instead.

An assignee of a financial asset cannot seek substitution in, or enforcement of, a prior Section 14 SARFAESI order if the assignment occurs after that order was already passed. Section 5(4) applies only where, on the date of acquisition, a suit, appeal, or other proceeding relating to the asset is already pending by or against the bank or financial institution. Because no proceeding was pending when the asset was acquired, the assignee could not claim the benefit of substitution in the earlier order. The proper course is to file a fresh Section 14 application in its own name; the impugned order was quashed and the petitioner was directed accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assignee of the debt could seek substitution in, or enforcement of, a prior order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act when the assignment took place after the order had already been passed, and whether Section 5(4) of the SARFAESI Act protected such a claim.

Analysis: Section 5(4) applies only where, on the date of acquisition of the financial asset, a suit, appeal, or other proceeding relating to that asset is pending by or against the bank or financial institution. The order under Section 14 had already been passed before the deed of assignment was executed, so there was no pending proceeding on the date of acquisition. In those circumstances, the assignee could not insist on substitution in the earlier order or on implementation of that order in its name. The proper course was to move a fresh application under Section 14 in its own capacity.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the petitioner was directed to file a fresh application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner succeeded.

---