The Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 15 to 23 read with Section 24 of the MSMED Act and the provisions of SARFAESI Act and stated that there is no repugnancy between the two enactments and no conflict between the specific subject of ‘priority' . It, hence, upheld the subsequent enactment of law with non-obstante clause in SARFAESI Act over MSMED Act.
The Court was called upon to decide as to while calculating the amount to be deposited as predeposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 50% of which amount the borrower is required to deposit as pre-deposit and whether while calculating the amount of “debt due”, the amount deposited by the auction purchaser on purchase of the secured assets is required to be adjusted and/or appropriated towards the amount of pre-deposit to be deposited by the borrower under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
Bombay High Court: The issue before the Court in the instant matter was that between a secured creditor (defined in
Bombay High Court: While deciding the instantwrit petition wherein the issue was regarding transgression of Additional District Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 14
by Bhoumick Vaidya† and Harshini Kotecha††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 77