Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that repeated Section 14 SARFAESI Act applications are lawful if justified, but remedies lie only before DRT under Section 17.
Bombay High Court holds that secured creditors with prior CERSAI registration enjoy priority over state tax dues under SARFAESI Act, reinforcing statutory supremacy of secured interests.
Bombay High Court holds that only MSMEs with loan limits up to Rs.25 crores qualify for RBI's revival framework; exposure means sanctioned limit, not outstanding amount.
Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that failure to disclose borrower's post-notice payments in Section 14 SARFAESI affidavit vitiates possession proceedings. Key precedent for financial institutions.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that banks need not approach Magistrate under Section 14 SARFAESI Act to take possession if notice is duly served and no resistance is encountered.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that authorities must assist banks in dispossessing borrowers under SARFAESI Act, reinforcing procedural compliance and state obligation.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that state authorities are legally obligated to assist banks in recovering secured assets under SARFAESI Act, reinforcing procedural compliance.
Madhya Pradesh High Court clarifies that under Section 14 SARFAESI Act, Magistrates must assist secured creditors ministerially without adjudicating borrower disputes or demanding hyper-technical compliance.
Rajasthan High Court grants borrower 10 days to deposit Rs.5 lakh and 15 days to approach DRAT before bank can seize property, affirming procedural fairness in SARFAESI proceedings.
Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that borrowers must exhaust DRT remedies before approaching High Court; directs DRT to decide pending stay application within 24 hours.
Bombay High Court holds that breach of RBI guidelines does not render loan contracts void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act; borrowers remain liable for repayment.