Tag: DRT

Public vs. Private Wrong: Supreme Court Explains Why Bank Fraud Cases Can’t Be Quashed Just Because Bank Settled
2Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Public vs. Private Wrong: Supreme Court Explains Why Bank Fraud Cases Can’t Be Quashed Just Because Bank Settled

The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings involving serious economic offences, especially those under the Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be quashed merely because a financial settlement or one-time settlement has been reached with the bank. Such offences constitute a crime against society at large, and quashing would be contrary to the interests of justice. Facts Of The Case: An FIR was registered in 2015 following a complaint by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The bank alleged that M/s Sarvodaya Highways Ltd. had fraudulently secured credit facilities of ₹60 crores by submitting fabricated work orders and financial statements to project a false financial standing. An internal inquiry later declared the account a Non-Performing Asset, uncovering an alleged fraud of...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Bank’s Illegal Mortgage Voids Multi-Crore Property Auction
21Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Bank’s Illegal Mortgage Voids Multi-Crore Property Auction

The Supreme Court quashed the e-auction sale as the proclamation violated Rule 53 of the Income Tax Act's Second Schedule, applicable via the RDDB Act. It failed to disclose material encumbrances, specifically DDA's claim for unearned increase. The Court held the sale was void, applying principles of restitution to refund the auction purchaser with interest. Facts Of The Case: The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) allotted a plot to Sarita Vihar Club on a leasehold basis. The club mortgaged the plot to Corporation Bank without obtaining the mandatory prior written consent from the Lieutenant Governor, as required by the lease deed. When the club defaulted on its loan, the Bank initiated recovery proceedings. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) ordered the sale of the plot. Despite DDA's obj...
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
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
Supreme Court Judgment: Banks Can Classify MSME Loans as NPA Without Prior “Stress Identification”
25Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgment: Banks Can Classify MSME Loans as NPA Without Prior “Stress Identification”

The Supreme Court held that the obligation to identify incipient stress under the MSME Rehabilitation Framework is not a mandatory precondition for a bank to classify an account as an NPA or issue a demand notice under the SARFAESI Act. The benefit of the Framework must be actively claimed by the MSME borrower in response to a notice under Section 13(2), supported by an affidavit, which then obligates the bank to consider the claim and pause recovery actions. Facts Of The Case: An MSME-registered enterprise, Shri Swami Samarth Construction & Finance Solution, had availed a loan from NKGSB Co-operative Bank. Upon defaulting on repayments, its account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The bank's authorized officer subsequently issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of...
Read More
Fraud Case Closed: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Accused After Bank Settlement
13Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Fraud Case Closed: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Accused After Bank Settlement

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the appellants. This decision was based on a comprehensive One Time Settlement with the Bank, full repayment of dues, and dismissal of recovery proceedings. The Court noted that continuing the proceedings would serve no purpose, especially given similar cases against co-accused were also quashed on grounds of settlement Facts Of The Case: N.S. Gnaneshwaran and N.S. Madanlal, accused nos. 3 and 6 respectively, are the appellants in this case. They were facing criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 16 of 2006, arising from FIR No. RC MA1 2005 0020, based on a complaint lodged by respondent no.2 - Bank on April 27, 2...
Read More
SARFAESI Act’s Section 11: Supreme Court Affirms Mandatory Arbitration for Financial Institutions
11Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

SARFAESI Act’s Section 11: Supreme Court Affirms Mandatory Arbitration for Financial Institutions

The Supreme Court, in Bank of India vs. M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., ruled that Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory, requiring inter-se disputes between banks and financial institutions concerning secured assets to be resolved through arbitration. No explicit arbitration agreement is needed; the provision legally mandates it, thereby divesting DRT of jurisdiction in such matters. Facts Of The Case: In the case of Bank of India vs. M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the core dispute involved the priority of charge over secured assets (stocks of paddy and rice) belonging to a common borrower, M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., between two public sector banks: Bank of India (appellant) and Punjab National Bank (respondent). Both banks had extended credit facil...
Read More