{"id":361237,"date":"2025-09-23T09:00:42","date_gmt":"2025-09-23T03:30:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=361237"},"modified":"2025-09-22T18:32:19","modified_gmt":"2025-09-22T13:02:19","slug":"remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/","title":{"rendered":"Remedy for Secured Creditors Aggrieved by Actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act: Where does it Lie?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

The Supreme Court of India in Bank of India<\/span> v. Sri Nangli Rice Mills (P) Ltd.<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a>, while dealing with the conflict between two secured creditors qua priority of charge\/enforcement of security interest, interpreted Section 112<\/sup><\/a> of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act)3<\/sup><\/a> and held that Section<\/span> 11 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act does apply to disputes between banks or financial institutions, especially when the dispute concerns the non-payment of dues or priority of charges. To attract the provision of Section<\/span> 11 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act, the Court held, twin conditions, viz. the dispute must be between any bank or financial institution or asset reconstruction company or qualified buyer and the dispute must relate to securitisation or reconstruction or non-payment of any amount due, including interest, must be fulfilled. Where these two conditions are found to be prima facie satisfied, the Court held, the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) will have no jurisdiction, and the proper recourse would be through Section<\/span> 11 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act, read with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19964<\/sup><\/a>. With the greatest respect, the author believes that where a secured creditor is aggrieved by the measures taken by another secured creditor under Section 13(4)5<\/sup><\/a> of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act and\/or where the dispute between two or more secured creditor relates to the enforcement of security interest under Section 13(4) of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act, the only remedy available to the aggrieved secured creditor is under Section 17(1)6<\/sup><\/a> of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act and not under Section<\/span> 11 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act. This article endeavours to substantiate the author’s belief with reasons and authorities.<\/span><\/p>\n

Judgment in Bank of India<\/span> v. Sri Nangli Rice Mills (P) Ltd<\/span>.7<\/sup><\/a><\/h3>\n

In this case, the dispute arose when the borrower, Sri Nangli Rice Mills, availed credit facilities from both Bank of India (BoI) and Punjab National Bank (PNB), in alleged violation of its original agreement with BoI. The BoI had earlier sanctioned credit in 2003 against the hypothecation of stock, with strict conditions prohibiting borrowing or the creation of third-party rights without its consent. However, while BoI’s dues remained unpaid, the borrower secured a second loan from PNB in 2013, pledging the same stock. Upon discovering this in 2015, BoI initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and a civil suit, claiming priority over the pledged assets. While the DRT initially ruled in BoI’s favour, holding that its charge was prior in time, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) remanded the matter for reconsideration on maintainability grounds. In the second round, the DRT declined jurisdiction, directing the parties to resolve the matter via arbitration under Section<\/span> 11 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act. This view was upheld by the High Court, prompting the BoI to approach the Supreme Court, challenging the applicability of arbitration in the absence of an arbitration agreement, and asserting that the DRT had proper jurisdiction under Section 17.<\/span><\/p>\n

In this background, the Supreme Court examined four key legal issues: (i<\/span>) the scope of Section<\/span> 11 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act, particularly the meaning of the phrase “any dispute relating to securitisation or reconstruction or non-payment of any amount due including interest”; (ii<\/span>) whether Section 11 applies to disputes between banks, financial institutions, asset reconstruction companies, or qualified buyers inter se; (iii<\/span>) whether the existence of a written arbitration agreement is a precondition for invoking Section 11; and (iv<\/span>) whether Section 11 is mandatory or directory in nature. The Court held that Section 11 mandates arbitration as the exclusive dispute resolution mechanism for inter se disputes among banks, financial institutions, asset reconstruction companies, and qualified buyers under the SARFAESI Act regime, even in the absence of a formal arbitration agreement. It clarified that the term “dispute” under Section 11 is broad and includes disputes relating to repayment and competing claims over secured assets. Consequently, the Court concluded that the DRT has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such inter se disputes, and upheld the High Court’s direction to resolve the matter through arbitration, affirming that Section 11 is mandatory and self-contained. Before concluding, the Court clarified that any dispute between two banks, financial institutions, asset reconstruction companies, or qualified buyers, etc., where the jural relation between the two is of a lender and a borrower, Section<\/span> 11 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act will have no application whatsoever.<\/span><\/p>\n

Analysis<\/h2>\n

While this judgment, to some extent, has given quietus to the longstanding controversy surrounding the applicability and scope of Section<\/span> 11 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act, however, with the greatest respect, this judgment overlooks the following aspects:<\/span><\/p>\n

How can Section<\/span> 11 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act, which forms part of Chapter II dealing with the regulation of securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets of banks and financial institutions, be invoked in cases where the dispute between banks or financial institutions pertains to the enforcement of security interest or the priority of charge — matters clearly falling under Chapter III? When a secured creditor is aggrieved by another’s actions under Section 13(4), which is expressly governed by Chapter III, how can Section 11 apply at all, especially when Section 17(1) provides a specific and statutory remedy before the DRT? Further, given that Section 17(1) uses the expression “any person (including borrower)”, thereby encompassing even banks or financial institutions aggrieved by measures under Section 13(4), can the arbitration mechanism under Section 11 override such an express legislative mandate? When the DRT is vested — both statutorily and judicially — with the authority to adjudicate all issues related to mortgages and enforcement of security interests, can its jurisdiction under Section 17(1) be curtailed by resorting to arbitration under Section 11? Moreover, does it not create an anomalous situation where, for the same cause of action concerning the priority of security interest, an aggrieved borrower approaches the DRT under Section 17(1), while the secured creditor must proceed separately under Section<\/span> 11 read with the<\/span> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? Lastly, in such inter se disputes involving enforcement, would an Arbitral Tribunal even be competent to grant an injunction against measures initiated by another bank, particularly when Section<\/span> 348<\/sup><\/a> of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act explicitly bars courts or any other authority from granting injunctions in respect of actions taken under the SARFAESI Act?<\/span><\/p>\n

As stated above, the author, with the greatest respect, believes that where a secured creditor is aggrieved by the measures taken by another secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act and\/or where the dispute between two or more secured creditors relate to the enforcement of security interest under Section 13(4) of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act, the only remedy available to the aggrieved secured creditor is under Section 17(1) of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act and not under Section<\/span> 11 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act. The reasons supporting the belief of the author are detailed hereinafter.<\/span><\/p>\n

The SARFAESI Act — An overview<\/h2>\n

The SARFAESI Act was enacted to regulate securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and the enforcement of security interests, and to provide for a Central database of security interests created on property rights. This Act empowered the secured creditors to recover the dues by enforcing the security interest created in the secured assets without the intervention of the court or tribunal. For the purpose of the present article, Chapters II and III of this Act are relevant. While Chapter II of this Act provides for the regulation of securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets of banks and financial institutions, Chapter III provides for the enforcement of security interests. Section 11 falls in Chapter II whereas Section 17 falls in Chapter III.<\/p>\n

Section 11 — Scope and application limited to Chapter II<\/h2>\n

Section 11, titled “Resolution of disputes”, falling in Chapter II of this Act, reads as under:<\/p>\n

11<\/span>. Where any dispute relating to securitisation or reconstruction or non-payment of any amount due including interest arises amongst any of the parties, namely, the bank, or financial institution, or asset reconstruction company or qualified buyer, such dispute shall be settled by conciliation or arbitration as provided in the<\/span> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), as if the parties to the dispute have consented in writing for determination of such dispute by conciliation or arbitration and the provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly.<\/span><\/p>\n

As rightly observed by the Supreme Court, Section 11 comes into play where there is a dispute relating to “securitisation or reconstruction or non-payment of any amount due” amongst any of the parties, namely, the bank, or financial institution, or asset reconstruction company, or qualified buyer.<\/span> A bare perusal of Section 11 shows that the expressions<\/span> “Enforcement of security interest” and “secured creditor” are conspicuously absent in Section 11, meaning thereby Section 11 does not cover those situations where the dispute between the bank or financial institution arises on account of the enforcement of security interest by a secured creditor. Interestingly, not only Section 11 but the entire Chapter II deliberately avoids the use of the expression “secured creditor”, making it clear that acts of the secured creditor, at least related to the enforcement of security interest, are beyond the purview of Section 11. Another interesting aspect that needs to be underpinned is the absence of a reference to Section 13(4) under Section 11 after the words “non-payment of any amount due” which further clarifies that disputes or grievances arising on account of enforcement of security interest in the secured asset do not fall in the ambit of resolution of disputes provided under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act.<\/p>\n

One more interesting aspect that needs to be taken note of, is the placement of Sections 69<\/sup><\/a> and 11 in Chapter II of the SARFAESI Act. Section 6 governs the process of notifying obligors when a bank or financial institution transfers a financial asset to an asset reconstruction company (ARC). It permits the lender to issue a notice of such acquisition to the obligor and relevant authorities. Once notified, the obligor is required to make payments directly to the ARC, and any such payment is treated as a full discharge of the obligor’s liability. However, if no notice is issued and the lender continues to receive payments, those amounts are deemed to be held in trust for the ARC and must be promptly transferred to it. This provision ensures transparency in asset transfers and protects the obligor from double liability, while also reinforcing fiduciary duties on the original lender. Even though Section 11 does not refer to Section 6, however, when read together, it appears that the expression “non-payment of any amount due” more appropriately covers the situations referred to under Section 6. This interpretation unequivocally rules out the extension of Section 11 to disputes that arise due to the priority of rights of enforcement, which are more specifically covered and dealt with under Section 17, falling in Chapter III of the Act. Thus, in the opinion of the author, the application of section is limited to the disputes concerning Chapter II of the SARFAESI Act and cannot be extended to cover disputes arising under Chapter III of the Act.<\/p>\n

Section 17 — Remedy to aggrieved persons against measures taken under Section 13(4)<\/h2>\n

Section 17 titled “Application against measures to recover secured debts”, falling in Chapter III of this Act, reads as under:<\/p>\n

17. Application against measures to recover secured debts<\/span>.—(1) Any person (including borrower) aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed, to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measure had been taken:<\/p>\n

Sub-section (1) of Section 17 empowers any person (including a borrower) aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in Section 13(4) of this Act taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this chapter to approach the jurisdictional DRT. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 17 empower DRT to check the legality of measures initiated by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) for the enforcement of the security interest by examining the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced by the parties, and pass an appropriate order allowing\/disallowing the secured creditor to enforce the security interest. Section 13 titled “Enforcement of security interest” also falls in Chapter III of this Act. Section 13(4) empowers a secured creditor to take recourse to one or more measures prescribed therein, in case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the 60 days stipulated under Section 13(2).<\/p>\n

In cases, where common secured assets are mortgaged\/hypothecated to two or more secured creditors and upon default in repayment by the borrower(s), one of the secured creditors invokes measures under Section 13(4) of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act for enforcement of security interest created in the said secured asset, grievance of the other secured creditor concerns the right of the secured creditor to enforce the security interest. In other words, in such a situation, what needs to be determined is the entitlement of the secured creditor to enforce the security interest i.e. which of the secured creditors is entitled to enforce the security interest first. Clearly,<\/span> non-payment of any amount due is not the question that needs to be determined at this stage since there is no relationship between the two or more creditors claiming the same\/similar right over the secured asset(s) in question. Here, it needs to be understood that non-payment of dues i.e. default in repayment of the loan facility by the borrower, gives rise to the actions by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act. No other creditor can be said to have any grievance against the borrower only because the said borrower committed defaults in repayment of loan to the other creditor. The grievance of a secured creditor qua other secured creditor arises only when the secured creditor, against whom the defaults were committed by the borrower, takes recourse to one or more of the measures under Section 13(4) of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act. Thus, the grievance of the secured creditor, in essence, relates only to a measure taken by another secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act. In such a scenario, Section 17(1) squarely applies to the aggrieved secured creditor.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the scenario mentioned above, it is quite clear that the dispute between these two or more creditors has nothing to do with the non-payment of any amount due, but rather relates to the right of the secured creditors to enforce the security interest. Precisely, the dispute concerns the priority of rights of the secured creditor to enforce the security interest and recover dues. Even otherwise, in the absence of an inter-creditor agreement or joint lending agreement between the contesting creditors, it is beyond imagination as to how two or more creditors, who have lent loans, at different point of times, to the same borrower(s) against one or more common secured assets, can claim to have any amount due to them by the other creditor. Since the grievance relates to exclusively to the enforcement of a security interest, it is only Section 17 that can be invoked by the aggrieved creditor. In the humble opinion of the author, Section 11 has no application in such a scenario and therefore, cannot be invoked by the aggrieved creditor.<\/p>\n

“Any person” under Section 17 includes an aggrieved bank or financial institution<\/h2>\n

Section 17, extracted above, uses the expression “any person (including a borrower)”. The Supreme Court in United Bank of India<\/span> v. Satyawati Tondon<\/span>10<\/sup><\/a>, observed that the expression “any person” used in Section 17(1) of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act is of wide importance. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section<\/span> 1411<\/sup><\/a> of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act. In Shammy Kumar<\/span> v. Bank of Baroda<\/span>12<\/sup><\/a>, an argument was advanced that the remedy under Section<\/span> 17 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act would not be maintainable on account of the petitioner being neither a borrower nor a guarantor. Repelling such contention, the Delhi High Court held that a bare perusal of Section<\/span> 17 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act, indicates that any person (including a borrower) aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in Section 13(4) of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act taken by the secured creditor or his authorised official under the relevant chapter may make an application along with such fees as may be prescribed to the DRT having jurisdiction in the matter within 45 days and the date on which such measures have been taken. A bare reading of Section<\/span> 17 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act clearly indicates that the remedy under Section<\/span> 17 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act is not restricted only to the borrower.<\/span><\/p>\n

These judgments make it amply clear that the expression “any person” is not limited to borrower or guarantor but takes within its purview any third party aggrieved by the measures of a secured creditor. Neither the provisions of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act nor the Rules framed thereunder provide for an express or implied exclusion of banks and financial institutions from the purview of “any person” used in Section 17(1). The author also finds no reason to exclude the banks or financial institutions from the ambit of “any person”. Thus, in the opinion of the author, the expression “any person” includes banks or financial institutions i.e. secured creditors, thereby enabling them to approach DRT under Section 17(1) against the measures initiated by a secured creditor concerning a common secured asset.<\/span><\/p>\n

Same cause of action — Multiple proceedings before the SARFAESI Act and Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/h2>\n

As stated above, Section 17(1) of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act empowers any person (including a borrower) aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in Section 13(4) of this Act taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this chapter to approach the jurisdictional DRT. Thus, in a case where a secured creditor invokes a measure under Section 13(4) of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act, the aggrieved borrower, or any person (other than a secured creditor), can approach the DRT under Section 17(1) and ventilate their grievances before the DRT. However, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri Nangli Rice Mills case<\/span>13<\/sup><\/a>, if a secured creditor is aggrieved by the same measures initiated by another secured creditor under Section 13(4), the aggrieved secured creditor will have to take recourse to arbitration under Section<\/span> 11 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act, read with the relevant provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thus, for the same cause of action, two or more proceedings will lie before two different authorities, thereby increasing chances of conflicting judgments. The interpretation adopted in the said judgment, in the humble opinion of the author, contradicts the object of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act as well as the express mandate of Section 13(1) of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act, which allows the secured creditor to enforce any security interest created in its favour without the intervention of the court or tribunal.<\/span><\/p>\n

Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act — Can Arbitral Tribunal injunct the secured creditor from enforcing the security interest?<\/h2>\n

In the scenario under discussion, where a secured creditor, claiming rights over the same secured asset against another secured creditor, approaches the Court\/Arbitral Tribunal under Section 914<\/sup><\/a>\/Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and prays for injuncting the other secured creditor from enforcing its rights in the secured asset in question, can the Arbitral Tribunal grant an injunction is another question that needs to be examined. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that in terms of Section<\/span> 34 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act, no civil court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a DRT or a DRAT is empowered by or under this Act to determine. Further, Section 34 bars a court or other authority from granting any injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act)15<\/sup><\/a>. While Sections 9 and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empower a court and Arbitral Tribunal respectively to grant an interim relief to the applicant secured creditor, Section<\/span> 34 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act prohibits any court or authority from granting any injunction in respect of any action taken under the provisions of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act. Thus, there seems to be an apparent conflict between power of Arbitral Tribunal to grant an injunction against the secured asset and Section<\/span> 34 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act. In other words, it can be said that Section<\/span> 34 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act nullifies the jurisdiction of court and Arbitral Tribunal under Sections 9 and17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.<\/span><\/p>\n

This apparent conflict between the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal and the DRT can also be examined from another perspective. Suppose, a secured creditor initiates measures under Section 13(4) of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act for taking possession or conducting sale of the secured asset. Another secured creditor claims rights over the same secured asset. The borrower aggrieved by the measures of the secured creditor files a securitisation application before DRT under Section<\/span> 17 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act. Simultaneously, the aggrieved secured creditor moves before the Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and prays for restraining the other secured creditor from proceeding further. Assuming the DRT declines the interim relief of the borrower whereas the Section 9 Court allows the interim relief of the aggrieved secured creditor thereby restraining the other secured creditor from enforcing the security interest. Now, despite there being no restraint against the secured creditor by the DRT, it cannot proceed for the enforcement of the security interest because of the interim relief granted by the Section 9 Court. Thus, multiple proceedings before different courts\/tribunals resulting in conflicting judgments\/directions will not only impede the recovery of the public money but also create a situation which will give rise to the abuse of the proceedings by the parties.<\/span><\/p>\n

Determination of venue\/seat for conducting arbitration — A practical problem in deemed arbitration<\/h2>\n

The Supreme Court in Sri Nangli Rice Mills case<\/span>16<\/sup><\/a>, observed that the existence of an arbitration agreement is not required under Section<\/span> 11 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act as Section 11 creates a legal fiction regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement, notwithstanding whether such an agreement exists or not in actuality. The Court went on to hold that Section<\/span> 11 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act is mandatory, not directory — thus, holding that such disputes must be resolved through arbitration and not before DRT or civil courts. While there is no dispute that Section<\/span> 11 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act creates a deeming fiction in favour of an arbitration agreement, there appears a noisy vacuum in such deeming fiction. The vacuum pertinently points out to the practical problems surrounding the determination of venue and seat of the arbitration for conducting the arbitral proceedings. The judgment does not lay down any factors for determination of the seat in such cases.<\/span><\/p>\n

While Section 2017<\/sup><\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers the Arbitral Tribunal to determine the place of arbitration having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the convenience of the parties, it will be interesting to see how the jurisdiction for filing cases for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 and thereafter for challenging the arbitral award is determined. It is worth to mention that the Supreme Court in, BGS SGS SOMA JV<\/span> v. NHPC Ltd.<\/span>18<\/sup><\/a>, categorically observed that the seat of arbitration alone and not the place of cause of action determines the jurisdiction of courts over the arbitration, when such seat is found to be designated or determined. Thus, in the absence of an arbitration agreement providing for seat of the arbitration, determination of the same by the courts will be a tedious task.<\/p>\n

All issues concerning the secured asset are required to be decided only by DRT<\/h2>\n

Before concluding, it is worth noting that Section<\/span> 17(7) of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act empowers the DRT to dispose of the application filed under Section<\/span> 17 of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act in accordance with the provisions of the RDB Act. By virtue of Section 17(7) read with Section<\/span> 3719<\/sup><\/a> of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act, the DRT, while dealing with an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, can exercise the powers conferred upon it under Section 2220<\/sup><\/a> of the RDB Act which deals with the powers of DRTs and the Appellate Tribunal. This section makes it clear that the DRT and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Civil Procedure Code, 190821<\/sup><\/a> rather they can regulate their own procedure while guided by the principles of natural justice. Section 22(2) further confers upon the DRTs and the Appellate Tribunal the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Thus, while deciding the applications under Section 17(1) of the<\/span> SARFAESI Act, the DRT has ample of powers and therefore, as held by the Supreme Court in SBI<\/span> v. Allwyn Alloys (P) Ltd.<\/span>22<\/sup><\/a>, all issues concerning the mortgaged property\/secured asset are to be decided by the DRT. This will not only facilitate speedy adjudication of competing claims of the secured creditors but also prevent multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments by different courts\/tribunals.<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, for the purpose it is enacted, is a complete code and therefore, all issues\/disputes arising out of or related to the enforcement of security interest shall be decided only by the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The expression “any person” used in Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act is of wide import and includes within its purview not only borrower\/guarantor but also any aggrieved third party including a bank or financial institution claiming any right or interest as a secured creditor in the mortgaged property\/secured asset in dispute. Thus, where a secured creditor is aggrieved by the measures initiated by another secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the only remedy, in the humble opinion of the author, available to such aggrieved secured creditor is under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and not under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

*Advocate. Author can be reached at: advprashant.pt@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> (2025) 257 Comp Cas 196 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1229<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, S. 11<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

4.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>.<\/p>\n

5.<\/a> Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, S. 13(4)<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

6.<\/a> Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, S. 17(1)<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

7.<\/a> (2025) 257 Comp Cas 196 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1229<\/a>.<\/p>\n

8.<\/a> Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, S. 34<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

9.<\/a> Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, S. 9<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

10.<\/a> (2010) 8 SCC 110<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

11.<\/a> Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, S. 14<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

12.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1424<\/a>.<\/p>\n

13.<\/a> (2025) 257 Comp Cas 196 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1229<\/a>.<\/p>\n

14.<\/a> Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, S. 9<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

15.<\/a> Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

16.<\/a> (2025) 257 Comp Cas 196 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1229<\/a>.<\/p>\n

17.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 20<\/a>.<\/p>\n

18.<\/a> (2020) 4 SCC 234<\/a>.<\/p>\n

19.<\/a> Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, S. 37<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

20.<\/a> Recovery of Bad Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, S. 22<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

21.<\/a> Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>.<\/p>\n

22.<\/a> (2018) 8 SCC 120<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Prashant Tripathi*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":361251,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[72592,77132,89636,89637,87239,89638,84088,89640,89635,89639],"class_list":["post-361237","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-arbitrationlaw","tag-bankinglaw","tag-drtjurisdiction","tag-financialdisputes","tag-indianlegalsystem","tag-legalremedies","tag-sarfaesiact","tag-section13sarfaesi","tag-securedcreditors","tag-supremecourtindia"],"yoast_head":"\nRemedy for Secured Creditors Aggrieved by Actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act: Where does it Lie? | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Supreme Court of India in Bank of India v. Sri Nangli Rice Mills (P) Ltd., while dealing with the conflict between two secured creditors\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Remedy for Secured Creditors Aggrieved by Actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act: Where does it Lie?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Supreme Court of India in Bank of India v. Sri Nangli Rice Mills (P) Ltd., while dealing with the conflict between two secured creditors\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-09-23T03:30:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Secured-Creditors-Remedy-under-SARFAESI-Act.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Remedy for Secured Creditors Aggrieved by Actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act: Where does it Lie?\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/\",\"name\":\"Remedy for Secured Creditors Aggrieved by Actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act: Where does it Lie? | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Secured-Creditors-Remedy-under-SARFAESI-Act.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-09-23T03:30:42+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"The Supreme Court of India in Bank of India v. Sri Nangli Rice Mills (P) Ltd., while dealing with the conflict between two secured creditors\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Secured-Creditors-Remedy-under-SARFAESI-Act.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Secured-Creditors-Remedy-under-SARFAESI-Act.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Secured Creditors Remedy under SARFAESI Act\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Remedy for Secured Creditors Aggrieved by Actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act: Where does it Lie?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Remedy for Secured Creditors Aggrieved by Actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act: Where does it Lie? | SCC Times","description":"The Supreme Court of India in Bank of India v. Sri Nangli Rice Mills (P) Ltd., while dealing with the conflict between two secured creditors","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Remedy for Secured Creditors Aggrieved by Actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act: Where does it Lie?","og_description":"The Supreme Court of India in Bank of India v. Sri Nangli Rice Mills (P) Ltd., while dealing with the conflict between two secured creditors","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-09-23T03:30:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Secured-Creditors-Remedy-under-SARFAESI-Act.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Remedy for Secured Creditors Aggrieved by Actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act: Where does it Lie?","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/","name":"Remedy for Secured Creditors Aggrieved by Actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act: Where does it Lie? | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Secured-Creditors-Remedy-under-SARFAESI-Act.webp","datePublished":"2025-09-23T03:30:42+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"The Supreme Court of India in Bank of India v. Sri Nangli Rice Mills (P) Ltd., while dealing with the conflict between two secured creditors","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Secured-Creditors-Remedy-under-SARFAESI-Act.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Secured-Creditors-Remedy-under-SARFAESI-Act.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Secured Creditors Remedy under SARFAESI Act"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/23\/remedy-for-secured-creditors-aggrieved-by-actions-under-section-134-of-the-sarfaesi-act-where-does-it-lie\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Remedy for Secured Creditors Aggrieved by Actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act: Where does it Lie?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Secured-Creditors-Remedy-under-SARFAESI-Act.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":273268,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/08\/bombay-high-court-secured-creditor-revenue-department-who-has-priority-liquidation-of-dues-substantial-questions-framed-and-answered-legal-news-legal-research-legal-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":361237,"position":0},"title":"Secured Creditor or Revenue Department- Who has priority over liquidation of their respective dues? Bombay HC frames and answers Seven substantial questions","author":"Editor","date":"September 8, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Bombay High Court: The issue before the Court in the instant matter was that between a secured creditor (defined in SARFAESI Act and Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act), and the revenue departments of the Central\/State Governments, who can legally claim priority for liquidation of their respective dues\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":281333,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/10\/recoveries-under-sarfaesi-act-secured-assets-would-prevail-over-recoveries-under-msmed-act-recover-amount-under-award-legal-news-legal-research-updates-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":361237,"position":1},"title":"SARFAESI Act recoveries with respect to the secured assets to prevail over the recoveries under the MSMED Act: Supreme Court","author":"Editor","date":"January 10, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"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 \u2018priority' . It, hence, upheld the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-36.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":350920,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/explained-scope-and-ambit-s11-sarfaesi-act-supreme-court-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":361237,"position":2},"title":"Explained | Supreme Court decision on scope & ambit of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act","author":"Sucheta","date":"June 18, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThere is no need for an explicit written arbitration agreement to attract Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act. The provision creates a legal fiction as regards the existence of an arbitration agreement\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"S 11 SARFAESI Act scope","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/S-11-SARFAESI-Act-scope.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/S-11-SARFAESI-Act-scope.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/S-11-SARFAESI-Act-scope.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/S-11-SARFAESI-Act-scope.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":238612,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/06\/does-the-remedy-under-section-14-of-sarfaesi-act-becomes-redundant-if-dm-is-unable-to-take-possession-of-secured-assets-within-time-limit-read-what-sc-says\/","url_meta":{"origin":361237,"position":3},"title":"Does the remedy under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act becomes redundant if DM is unable to take possession of secured assets within time limit? Read what SC says","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 6, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta* and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has upheld Kerala High Court\u2019s decision holding that Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) mandating the District Magistrate to deliver possession of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":32651,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/14\/company-judge-has-no-say-in-the-sale-of-secured-assets-made-by-secured-creditors-under-the-sarfaesi-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":361237,"position":4},"title":"Company Judge has no say in the sale of secured assets made by secured creditors under the SARFAESI Act","author":"Sucheta","date":"January 14, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: While answering the common question of law involved in the present appeal that whether a Company Court directly or through an official liquidator can interfere in a sale of secured assets made by the secured creditors as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Division Bench of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":264603,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/28\/evolving-jurisprudence-in-connection-with-sarfaesi-vis-a-vis-pending-statutory-dues\/","url_meta":{"origin":361237,"position":5},"title":"Evolving Jurisprudence in Connection with SARFAESI vis-\u00e0-vis Pending Statutory Dues","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 28, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Rahul Chakraborti\u2020, Prashamsha Tulachan\u2020\u2020 and Saumya Agarwal\u2020\u2020\u2020 Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 27","rel":"","context":"In "Experts Corner"","block_context":{"text":"Experts Corner","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-105-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-105-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-105-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-105-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-105-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361237","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=361237"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361237\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/361251"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=361237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=361237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=361237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}