[Loan Default] Acts Of Bank Officials While Taking Possession Of Building Protected Under Section 32 Of SARFAESI Act: Kerala High Court
1 year, 9 months ago

[Loan Default] Acts Of Bank Officials While Taking Possession Of Building Protected Under Section 32 Of SARFAESI Act: Kerala High Court

Live Law  

The Kerala High Court on Monday held that the acts of bank officials in connection with taking possession of a building or an apartment under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 are protected under Section 32 of the Act, if they are done in good faith. The Court was considering a petition filed by officials of Punjab National Bank for quashing an FIR filed by an apartment owner under several sections of the Indian Penal Code including Section 442 and Section 448. Therefore, registration of FIR under Section 442 read with Section 448 of IPC against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law which is liable to be quashed.” The Court observed that the acts of the bank officials were in good faith as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and under directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Court also observed that the petitioners failed to show that the acts relating to the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC were done in good faith under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

Court Bank Kerala High Court Officials Fir Complainant Act Acts Ker Good Faith Section 32 Sarfaesi Act Bank Officials Sarfaesi  sarfaesi  kerala  fir  protected  complainant  default  bank  sections  court  acts  act  taking  petitioners  possession  loan  high  officials

History of this topic

If Alleged Acts Constitute An Offence, Denying Criminal Action Solely Due To Pursuit Of Civil Remedy Would Be 'Travesty Of Justice': Kerala HC
1 week, 2 days ago

If Alleged Acts Constitute An Offence, Denying Criminal Action Solely Due To Pursuit Of Civil Remedy Would Be 'Travesty Of Justice': Kerala HC

Live Law  

The Kerala High Court has held that it would be travesty of justice to deny parties from approaching criminal courts to initiate proceedings against offenders solely because they had pursued a civil remedy by filing a suit, particularly when the alleged acts also constitute specific criminal offences. It would amount to travesty of justice to shut out the doors of …

Bank Cannot Be Held Responsible For Illegal Activities Conducted By Borrower In Mortgaged Premises: Supreme Court
1 year, 1 month ago

Bank Cannot Be Held Responsible For Illegal Activities Conducted By Borrower In Mortgaged Premises: Supreme Court

Live Law  

The Supreme Court, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the NGT, Delhi, held that a Bank cannot be held responsible for illegal activities carried out by the borrower in mortgaged premises. “…we are unable to subscribe to the reasoning and view of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in the impugned judgment, which holds that the …

S.34 SARFAESI Act | Civil Court's Jurisdiction Not Ousted When Remedy Cannot Be Effectively Addressed By Tribunal: Madras High Court
1 year, 5 months ago

S.34 SARFAESI Act | Civil Court's Jurisdiction Not Ousted When Remedy Cannot Be Effectively Addressed By Tribunal: Madras High Court

Live Law  

While dismissing an application filed under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act to reject a plaint on the ground that the court's jurisdiction was ousted, the Madras High Court observed that the civil court's jurisdiction is not ousted when the remedy sought cannot be effectively addressed by the Tribunal. Though the bank had challenged the suit claiming that the court’s …

S.34 SARFAESI Act Bars Grant Of Injunction By Civil Court For Actions Taken Under The Act: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
1 year, 7 months ago

S.34 SARFAESI Act Bars Grant Of Injunction By Civil Court For Actions Taken Under The Act: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Live Law  

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ruled that no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The case before the court involved a plaintiff who had filed a …

SARFAESI Proceedings Not Invalidated On Mere Failure Of Bank In Giving Reply To Objections If Borrower's Proposals Were Otherwise Considered : Supreme Court
3 years, 3 months ago

SARFAESI Proceedings Not Invalidated On Mere Failure Of Bank In Giving Reply To Objections If Borrower's Proposals Were Otherwise Considered : Supreme Court

Live Law  

The Supreme Court held that failure to furnish reply by the creditor as per the mandate of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 would not entitle the debtor of discretionary relief, if the Court is satisfied that the creditor has considered the debtor's representation and granted it sufficient opportunity …

Trivial Procedural Lapses Not A Ground To Nullify SARFAESI Proceedings Initiated By Secured Creditor If No Substantial Prejudice Was Caused To Borrower: SC [Read Judgment]
4 years, 4 months ago

Trivial Procedural Lapses Not A Ground To Nullify SARFAESI Proceedings Initiated By Secured Creditor If No Substantial Prejudice Was Caused To Borrower: SC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

The Supreme Court has observed that proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act by the Secured Creditors cannot be nullified merely on the ground of technical defects and procedural lapses unless substantial prejudice was caused to the defaulter. In this case, the Debt Recovery Tribunal quashed the demand notice served on the borrower under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction …

Discover Related