Tag: Debt Recovery

CPC Order XXI Rule 90(3): Supreme Court Clarifies Time-Bar for Challenging Execution Sales
10Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

CPC Order XXI Rule 90(3): Supreme Court Clarifies Time-Bar for Challenging Execution Sales

The Supreme Court held that Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC bars judgment debtors from challenging an execution sale on grounds they could have raised before the sale proclamation was drawn up. Failure to object to the sale of an entire property, rather than a sufficient part, at the appropriate stage precludes a subsequent challenge under Order XXI Rule 90. Facts Of The Case: In 1995, decree-holder Rasheeda Yasin filed a suit for recovery of ₹3.75 lakhs against Komala Ammal and her son K.J. Prakash Kumar. An ex-parte decree was passed in 1997. Execution proceedings began in 1998 to attach and sell the judgment debtors' property—a house and site in Chennai. After multiple unsuccessful auctions due to high upset prices, the court, upon the decree-holder's applications, progressively reduced the ...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: Defective Affidavit Can Be Corrected in Insolvency Petitions
10Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Defective Affidavit Can Be Corrected in Insolvency Petitions

The Supreme Court held that a defective affidavit filed in support of a Section 7 IBC application is a curable procedural irregularity and does not render the application non est. The Court emphasized that the mandatory notice under Section 7(5)(b) of the IBC must be specifically issued to the applicant before rejection, and procedural rules should not defeat substantive rights. Facts Of The Case: HDFC Bank filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. for a defaulted loan of ₹5.5 crores. The application, verified on July 26, 2023, was supported by an affidavit deposed on July 17, 2023. The NCLT Ahmedabad Bench rejected the petition at the threshold, citing this date discrepancy in the affidavit as a fatal ...
Read More
SARFAESI Act vs EPF Act: Supreme Court Says Provident Fund Charge Prevails Over Bank
9Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

SARFAESI Act vs EPF Act: Supreme Court Says Provident Fund Charge Prevails Over Bank

This Supreme Court judgment interprets the interplay between the priority of secured creditors under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and the statutory first charge for provident fund dues under Section 11(2) of the EPF & MP Act. The Supreme Court held that the statutory first charge for provident fund contributions overrides the priority granted to secured creditors, even under a non-obstante clause in a later enactment. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Jalgaon District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., is a secured creditor which had advanced loans to a co-operative sugar society, secured by a mortgage and hypothecation of the society's assets. The sugar factory became defunct, leading to loan defaults. The bank initiated recovery under the SARFAESI Act, took possession o...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: Trustees Can Be Sued for Dishonored Cheques, Even If Trust Is Not Named as Accused
24Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Trustees Can Be Sued for Dishonored Cheques, Even If Trust Is Not Named as Accused

This Supreme Court judgment holds that under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a Trust is not a juristic person capable of being sued. A complaint for a dishonored cheque issued on behalf of a Trust is maintainable against the Trustee who signed it, without needing to array the Trust itself as an accused. The ruling clarifies that vicarious liability attaches directly to the responsible Trustee. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a financial arrangement concerning William Carey University. Facing a crisis, its sponsoring body, ACTS Group, entered an MoU with Orion Education Trust on 12.10.2017 to hand over the university's management. The Respondent, Vijaykumar Agarwal, was Orion's Chairman. In this capacity, he authorized the Appellant, Sankar Padam Thapa, to liaise wit...
Read More
Simplifying the Supreme Court’s Order 37 Judgment: Why “Leave to Defend” is Mandatory
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Simplifying the Supreme Court’s Order 37 Judgment: Why “Leave to Defend” is Mandatory

The Supreme Court held that in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, a defendant cannot file a defence without first obtaining "leave to defend" from the court. Permitting a reply to a summons for judgment bypasses this mandatory procedure, which effaces the fundamental distinction between a summary suit and an ordinary suit. The Court set aside the impugned order for this procedural deviation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a commercial summary suit filed by the appellant, Executive Trading Company, to recover a sum of over Rs. 2.38 crore from the respondent, Grow Well Mercantile. The suit was instituted under the special fast-track procedure of Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). After the defendant entered appearance, the plaintiff served a "summons for judgm...
Read More
Supreme Court Says :Withdrawing a Case from Supreme Court Has a Cost: No Second Chance
13Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Says :Withdrawing a Case from Supreme Court Has a Cost: No Second Chance

This Supreme Court judgement reaffirms that if a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is unconditionally withdrawn without seeking liberty to file a fresh one, a second SLP challenging the same order is not maintainable. This principle, drawn from Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, is grounded in public policy to prevent bench-hunting and ensure litigation finality. An appeal against an order merely dismissing a review petition is also not maintainable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Satheesh V.K., was a borrower who had defaulted on a loan from the Federal Bank, leading the bank to classify the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and initiate recovery under the SARFAESI Act. Challenging this action, Satheesh filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Cou...
Read More
No Redemption After Auction Notice: Supreme Court Major Ruling on Bank Loan Recovery
10Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Redemption After Auction Notice: Supreme Court Major Ruling on Bank Loan Recovery

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the right of redemption of a mortgagor under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act is extinguished upon the publication of the notice of sale, as per the 2016 amendment. The Court held that this amended provision is retrospective in operation and overrides the general right of redemption under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The ruling emphasizes that only a single composite notice of sale is required under the SARFAESI Rules, irrespective of the mode of transfer adopted by the secured creditor. Facts Of The Case: The borrowers, M/s KPK Oils and Proteins India Pvt. Ltd. and its guarantors, availed credit facilities from the respondent Bank in January 2016, creating an equitable mortgage over various properties. After the loan account was classif...
Read More
Cheque Bounce Notice Must Demand Exact Cheque Amount, Rules Supreme Court
10Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Cheque Bounce Notice Must Demand Exact Cheque Amount, Rules Supreme Court

In a significant ruling under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Supreme Court held that a demand notice under Section 138 Proviso (b) must specify the exact cheque amount. Demanding a different sum, even due to a typographical error, renders the notice legally invalid and fatal to the complaint, as the provision mandates strict compliance. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Kaveri Plastics, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondents. The case originated from a Memorandum of Understanding related to the sale of land. As part of this agreement, the accused company issued a cheque for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in favour of the appellant. However, upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured by the bank due to "insufficient fund...
Read More
SBI Wins Case: Supreme Court Rules OTS Application Invalid Without Upfront Payment
5Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

SBI Wins Case: Supreme Court Rules OTS Application Invalid Without Upfront Payment

The Supreme Court held that a borrower's failure to comply with the mandatory upfront payment requirement under a One-Time Settlement (OTS) scheme renders the application incomplete and not entitled to processing. The Court further ruled that, in judicial review, an administrative order of rejection can be upheld on an alternative legal ground apparent from the record, provided the affected party is granted a fair opportunity to respond. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, Tanya Energy Enterprises, availed credit facilities from the State Bank of India (SBI) by mortgaging seven properties but subsequently defaulted on its repayment obligations. After its account was classified as a non-performing asset, SBI initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. A prior One-Time Settlement...
Read More
Homebuyer Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies When a Real Estate Investment Becomes “Speculative”
2Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Homebuyer Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies When a Real Estate Investment Becomes “Speculative”

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the distinction between genuine homebuyers and speculative investors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It holds that allottees with agreements structured for assured returns or buy-back clauses, without a genuine intent to possess the property, are speculative investors. Such investors are barred from initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the IBC, as the Code is not a recovery mechanism for speculative investments. Facts Of The Case: This case consolidates four civil appeals concerning the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against real estate developers by individual allottees. The primary appellant, Mansi Brar Fernandes, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Gay...
Read More