• About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Contact Us
Monday, March 8, 2021
Law Trend
  • google-play
  • apple-store
  • Login
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend - हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
  • Webinar
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
No Result
View All Result
Law Trend
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend - हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
  • Webinar
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
No Result
View All Result
Law Trend
No Result
View All Result

No Bar Under Section 14 SARFAESI Act For DM To Take Possession of Secured Asset After 90 days: SC

by Law Trend
November 7, 2020
in Judgements, Trending Stories
2 min read
sarfaesi act
646
SHARES
1.8k
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via WhatsappShare via EmailPinterest

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Hon’ble Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon’ble Justice Hemant Gupta and Hon’ble Justice Ajay Rastogi has upheld the High Court of Kerala’s decision holding that Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act which mandates the District Magistrate to deliver possession of a secured asset within a period of 30 days, which is extendable to 60 days is directory provision.

Court clarifies the object of SARFAESI Act.

The Court noted that the SARFAESI Act was enacted to empower banks and financial institutions, so they have the power to take possession of a secured asset and sell them to realise their dues.

SARFAESI Act was devised after Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 did not produce the desirous results.

If the District Magistrate is unable to take possession of the secured asset within the prescribed time then will it render the District Magistrate Functus Officio?

The Court opined that the time limit prescribed in the Act had been fixed to impress upon the authority to take possession of the asset within the prescribed time period. However, if the District Magistrate is unable to take the possession, then it will not render the District Magistrate Functus Officio.

It was further observed that the time limit was there to instil confidence in the creditors that the DM will attempt to deliver the possession within the time period. If the DM is unable to take possession, then the reasons should be given in writing.

Limitations of High Courts to pass interim orders:-

On the issue that the aggrieved parties and borrowers approach the High Court under Article 227 or 226 without availing the statutory remedy, the Court opined that the High Courts were well aware of limitations of their jurisdictions when effective alternative remedies were available, and such interim orders should not be passed easily.

Case Details:

Title:C Bright vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS.
Case No. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3441 OF 2020
Coram: Hon’ble Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon’ble Justice Hemant Gupta and Hon’ble Justice Ajay Rastogi
Date of Judgment: 05.11.2020

Read Judgment
Tags: sarfaesiSupreme Courtsupreme Court Judgment

Related Posts

Supreme Court New Image (1)
Court Updates

Supreme Court Quashes FIR of Rape after finding that Promise to Marry was not False at the beginning of relationship

March 7, 2021
crime scene
Court Updates

Woman Files Rape Case After 27 Years, when her son enquired about his father

March 7, 2021
blood donation
Court Updates

Why Transgender and Sex Workers Cannot Donate Blood? Asks Supreme Court from Centre

March 7, 2021

Advertisement

POPULAR NEWS

  • Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala lawtrend

    Bombay HC Judge who gave “Skin to Skin” POCSO Verdict loses Judgeship Confirmation

    5742 shares
    Share 2297 Tweet 1436
  • Where is the Provision of Using Advocate Sticker on Vehicle?

    5133 shares
    Share 2053 Tweet 1283
  • What is the tenure of protection granted under Anticipatory Bail? :SC 5 Judges

    4832 shares
    Share 1932 Tweet 1208
  • Air Asia Crashes Against Gaurav Taneja; Court Says Airline Suppressed Facts

    4706 shares
    Share 1882 Tweet 1177
  • Husband-Wife Take Oath as High Court Judge

    3279 shares
    Share 1312 Tweet 820
Law Trend

Rabhyaa Foundation has started this platform on values enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The object of this platform is to create informed citizens with recent legal updates, Judgments, Legislations of Parliament and State Legislatures, and views of experts in the field of law, in plain and pointed language, for the intellectual development of citizens.
Our tag line “The Line of Law” guides that this......
Read More

Follow Us On Social Media

Subscribe to our News Letter

Sign Up for weekly newsletter to get the latest news, Updates and amazing offers delivered directly in to your inbox.

Categories

  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Columns
  • Bare Acts and Rules
  • Online Internship
  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Contact Us

© 2020 Law Trends| All Right Reserved | Designed ByAaratechnologies Pvt Ltd

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend – हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
      • Uttar Pradesh Acts
      • Uttar Pradesh Rules
      • Uttrakhand
      • DELHI
  • Webinar/Videos
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
  • Android App
  • IOS APP

© 2020 Law Trends| All Right Reserved | Designed ByAaratechnologies Pvt Ltd

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Create New Account!

Fill the forms bellow to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In