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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal was justified in halting further action under the SARFAESI Act on the basis of a claimed moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code despite the sale certificate already having been issued and registered in favour of the auction purchasers. (ii) Whether the borrowers and guarantors, after repeated one-time settlement proposals and a delayed challenge to the secured creditor's measures, could invoke the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to stall completion of the auction process.
Issue (i): Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal was justified in halting further action under the SARFAESI Act on the basis of a claimed moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code despite the sale certificate already having been issued and registered in favour of the auction purchasers.
Analysis: The secured asset had already been sold in a concluded auction, the sale certificate had been issued and registered, and prior proceedings before the insolvency fora had already determined that the secured asset stood excluded from the personal guarantor's estate and from the moratorium. A later invocation of interim moratorium could not be used to reverse or obstruct completed enforcement steps under the SARFAESI framework. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the legal effect of the concluded sale and the earlier binding orders.
Conclusion: The stoppage of further SARFAESI steps on the basis of the claimed moratorium was unwarranted and is set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether the borrowers and guarantors, after repeated one-time settlement proposals and a delayed challenge to the secured creditor's measures, could invoke the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to stall completion of the auction process.
Analysis: The borrowers and guarantors remained passive for years after service of the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, repeatedly sought settlement, did not act on the sanctioned settlement, and approached the Tribunal only after the auction process had substantially progressed. Their conduct was treated as waiver of objection to the secured creditor's measures and as a deliberate attempt to frustrate lawful recovery by resorting to insolvency proceedings in a collusive manner. Such conduct attracted the principles of waiver and equitable estoppel and amounted to misuse of the insolvency process.
Conclusion: The borrowers and guarantors could not rely on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to obstruct the auction purchaser's rights and further recovery steps.
Final Conclusion: The writ court intervened to restore the lawful enforcement process under the SARFAESI Act, directed continuation of steps for delivery of possession to the auction purchasers, and required the pending securitisation application to be decided on its own merits.
Ratio Decidendi: A party that has repeatedly acquiesced in secured creditor action and has allowed the auction process to crystallize cannot, by a later and collusive insolvency filing, invoke interim moratorium to defeat completed SARFAESI enforcement or to prevent delivery of possession to the auction purchaser.
TaxTMI 
