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 the secured creditor was entitled to proceed under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, including by issuance of notice under Section 13(4), and whether the guarantor could resist such measures on the footing that liability was not enforceable against him.
Analysis: The challenge arose from proceedings initiated by the secured creditor for recovery of dues against mortgaged property. The Court held that where a mortgage exists and loan amounts remain recoverable, the secured creditor is entitled to proceed under the SARFAESI framework. It further affirmed that the liability of the guarantor is joint and several with that of the principal debtor, and therefore the measures taken under the Act could not be interdicted on the grounds urged against the demand notice.
Conclusion: The challenge to the SARFAESI measures failed and the secured creditor was held entitled to proceed, including under Section 13(4) of the Act.
Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside and the appeal succeeded, leaving the secured creditor free to continue recovery action under the SARFAESI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: A secured creditor may enforce a mortgage under the SARFAESI Act when the debt remains recoverable, and the guarantor remains jointly and severally liable with the principal debtor.