Pending Registration Of Sale Certificate Does Not Mean SARFAESI Sale Is Incomplete: Delhi High Court

On 3 September, the Delhi High Court held that the mere pendency of registration of a Sale Certificate does not by itself render a sale under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) incomplete. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed an appeal filed by Patil Constructions against the Single Judge's order dated 23 July 2026, which had dismissed its writ...

MSME Borrower Can't Raise Revival Framework Defence In Subsequent SARFAESI Case: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on 1 September held that an MSME borrower cannot invoke the MSME revival and rehabilitation framework for the first time in subsequent litigation to challenge SARFAESI proceedings when the borrower failed to raise the issue in the first round of litigation. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. upheld the dismissal of a writ petition filed by Soubhagye Road Builders and its proprietors against recovery proceedings initiated by Canara Bank...

Recovery Officer Cannot Attach SARFAESI Statutory Pre-Deposit U/S 28(4) RDB Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on 31 August held that a Recovery Officer cannot attach a statutory pre-deposit made by a borrower under the second proviso to Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), by invoking Section 28(4) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. A Division Bench of Chief Justices Soumen Sen and Syam Kumar V.M. set aside the Recovery Officer's order attaching E.T. Firoz's Rs....

Bombay High Court Dismisses Contempt Plea Against Kotak Mahindra Bank Over 7-Day Possession Notice

On 21 August, the Bombay High Court dismissed a contempt petition alleging that Kotak Mahindra Bank and the Tahsildar, Mira-Bhayandar violated the Court's direction to give seven days' notice before taking physical possession of a secured flat. A Division Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat held that the failure to give the full seven-day notice did not amount to gross contempt or wilful disobedience, and found that the Tahsildar's office appeared to have miscalculated the...

Cheque Handover Date Discrepancy Does Not Defeat Liability When Signatures Are Admitted: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on 10 August held that a discrepancy regarding the date on which a cheque bearing the defendant's admitted signatures was handed over, does not, by itself, undermine the underlying loan liability. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed Rakesh Srivastava's appeal and upheld the 30 April 2026 judgment of the District Judge, which had decreed Pradeep Yadav's recovery suit for Rs. 6 lakh with pendente lite and future interest at 9% per annum. She observed: "When the cheque...

ARC Can Be Substituted In Pending Cheque Bounce Case After Acquiring Loan From Bank: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 3 August held that an Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) can seek substitution as the complainant in a pending cheque bounce prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), after acquiring the underlying financial asset from a bank. Justice N.R. Borkar dismissed a petition filed by Avarsekar & Sons Pvt Ltd and its directors challenging the substitution of Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Ltd. (ACRE) as complainant in place...

DRT Registrar Cannot Suo Motu Refer Applications To Presiding Officer: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that the Registrar of a Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) cannot suo motu place an unnumbered securitisation application (SA) before the Presiding Officer to decide questions of maintainability or locus standi. The Registrar's role is limited to scrutinising applications for defects, giving applicants an opportunity to cure them and, where defects remain, declining registration through a reasoned order.“The Rule does not give any power to the Registrar to place the...

MSME Must Seek Rehabilitation Under 2015 Framework Despite Bank's Duty To Identify Stress: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that an MSME must itself initiate proceedings under the 2015 Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation when it apprehends failure of its business or an inability to repay its debts.A division bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. made the observation while dismissing Sree Matha Cosmetic Industries' writ appeal against SARFAESI proceedings initiated by UCO Bank.“While the Framework casts an obligation for the Bank to identify the incipient...

Civil Courts Cannot Injunct SARFAESI Measures; 'To Be Taken' Includes Future Action: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that civil courts cannot grant injunctions against measures already taken, or “to be taken," by banks under the SARFAESI Act.The court held that Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act imposes a wider bar on civil courts granting injunctions against any action taken or “to be taken” in pursuance of powers under the Act.“Whereas a suit or proceeding cannot be instituted if a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been issued, the bar to grant of...

Andhra Pradesh High Court Declines To Interfere With SARFAESI Action, Cites Alternative DRT Remedy

Holding that a litigant with an effective statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal cannot ordinarily invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Canara Bank communication concerning unhypothecated machinery at an auctioned property. The decision was rendered by a Division Bench of Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma. The court observed, "From the above factual position, it is evident that an...

Different Inks On Cheque Do Not Make It Invalid, Cast Doubt On Execution: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that a cheque cannot be treated as invalid merely because its signature and other particulars were written in different inks. Justice A. Badharudeen observed that there is no legal requirement for the date, amount, and signature on a cheque to be written in the same ink.“Merely because the signature was put by using one ink and entries were made by using another ink by itself would not make the negotiable instrument as an invalid document or a document to doubt its...

'Even The Bald Want A Haircut': Calcutta High Court Slams Borrowers' Repeated Bid To Sell Secured Assets

The Calcutta High Court has criticised borrowers of South Indian Bank for repeatedly seeking permission to sell all their immovable properties without the bank's interference, calling the attempts “commercially imprudent” and “mischievous”.A division bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) observed,“The repeated attempts of the borrowers to seek permission to sell all their immovable properties without any interference from the appellant bank is not only...