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: (i) Whether initiation of arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 barred recourse to proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. (ii) Whether, after amalgamation, the transferee company as successor-in-interest could invoke the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in respect of loans originally advanced by an entity that was not then a secured creditor under that Act.
Issue (i): Whether initiation of arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 barred recourse to proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Analysis: The special recovery regime under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 operates in addition to, and not in derogation of, other remedies. The existence of arbitration proceedings does not attract the doctrine of election because enforcement under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is a distinct statutory remedy for realization of secured assets. The two enactments are complementary, and the invocation of arbitration did not foreclose action under the security enforcement statute.
Conclusion: The answer is against the borrowers and in favour of the appellant; arbitration proceedings did not bar recourse to the security enforcement .
Issue (ii): Whether, after amalgamation, the transferee company as successor-in-interest could invoke the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in respect of loans originally advanced by an entity that was not then a secured creditor under that Act.
Analysis: On sanction of the amalgamation scheme under the Companies Act, the loans, security documents, rights and liabilities of the transferor vested in the transferee company. The Act was held to be retroactive in operation in the sense that it applies to pre-existing debts and existing security interests once the statute or notification brings the lender within its sweep. The borrower's status and the security arrangement are determined with reference to the legal position after such vesting, and the change of forum for enforcement is procedural rather than substantive. The transferor's inability at the earlier point of time did not prevent the successor, now a secured creditor, from enforcing the security interest.
Conclusion: The answer is against the borrowers and in favour of the appellant; the transferee company could validly invoke the Act as successor-in-interest.
Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was unsustainable because the security enforcement statute applied to the existing debt after amalgamation, and its use was not barred by prior arbitration steps. The borrower's challenge failed and the security enforcement measures were restored.
Ratio Decidendi: The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 provides an additional and complementary enforcement remedy, and as a retroactive procedural statute it can be invoked for pre-existing debts by a successor-in-interest after a lawful amalgamation and vesting of the secured asset and debt.