Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2006 (11) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2006 (11) TMI 349 - SC - Companies Law


  1. 2023 (10) TMI 895 - SC
  2. 2023 (10) TMI 48 - SC
  3. 2022 (11) TMI 1325 - SC
  4. 2022 (8) TMI 594 - SC
  5. 2021 (10) TMI 527 - SC
  6. 2021 (7) TMI 1456 - SC
  7. 2021 (5) TMI 1031 - SC
  8. 2021 (9) TMI 1154 - SC
  9. 2020 (12) TMI 1227 - SC
  10. 2020 (11) TMI 1115 - SC
  11. 2020 (4) TMI 730 - SC
  12. 2019 (9) TMI 1121 - SC
  13. 2019 (9) TMI 1020 - SC
  14. 2018 (11) TMI 498 - SC
  15. 2018 (3) TMI 932 - SC
  16. 2018 (3) TMI 118 - SC
  17. 2017 (9) TMI 1266 - SC
  18. 2016 (1) TMI 904 - SC
  19. 2015 (8) TMI 1165 - SC
  20. 2015 (11) TMI 1315 - SC
  21. 2015 (1) TMI 461 - SC
  22. 2013 (9) TMI 1289 - SC
  23. 2012 (5) TMI 569 - SC
  24. 2012 (5) TMI 731 - SC
  25. 2011 (2) TMI 1277 - SC
  26. 2009 (10) TMI 825 - SC
  27. 2009 (8) TMI 1186 - SC
  28. 2009 (7) TMI 765 - SC
  29. 2009 (2) TMI 451 - SC
  30. 2008 (8) TMI 799 - SC
  31. 2024 (5) TMI 1085 - HC
  32. 2024 (7) TMI 453 - HC
  33. 2022 (12) TMI 148 - HC
  34. 2023 (3) TMI 420 - HC
  35. 2022 (9) TMI 163 - HC
  36. 2022 (5) TMI 1079 - HC
  37. 2022 (1) TMI 111 - HC
  38. 2021 (3) TMI 1464 - HC
  39. 2020 (8) TMI 921 - HC
  40. 2020 (1) TMI 34 - HC
  41. 2020 (1) TMI 746 - HC
  42. 2019 (9) TMI 1495 - HC
  43. 2019 (1) TMI 1810 - HC
  44. 2019 (1) TMI 827 - HC
  45. 2018 (12) TMI 1543 - HC
  46. 2018 (10) TMI 1825 - HC
  47. 2018 (10) TMI 710 - HC
  48. 2018 (3) TMI 275 - HC
  49. 2017 (11) TMI 487 - HC
  50. 2017 (10) TMI 1233 - HC
  51. 2017 (7) TMI 1330 - HC
  52. 2017 (3) TMI 1240 - HC
  53. 2017 (3) TMI 748 - HC
  54. 2017 (2) TMI 1154 - HC
  55. 2016 (9) TMI 765 - HC
  56. 2016 (7) TMI 935 - HC
  57. 2016 (5) TMI 982 - HC
  58. 2016 (1) TMI 281 - HC
  59. 2015 (8) TMI 1548 - HC
  60. 2015 (8) TMI 1304 - HC
  61. 2015 (9) TMI 82 - HC
  62. 2014 (8) TMI 1208 - HC
  63. 2014 (4) TMI 1213 - HC
  64. 2013 (11) TMI 542 - HC
  65. 2015 (2) TMI 1046 - HC
  66. 2013 (1) TMI 252 - HC
  67. 2015 (1) TMI 320 - HC
  68. 2015 (1) TMI 319 - HC
  69. 2012 (10) TMI 873 - HC
  70. 2013 (9) TMI 940 - HC
  71. 2015 (1) TMI 462 - HC
  72. 2011 (11) TMI 770 - HC
  73. 2011 (9) TMI 1150 - HC
  74. 2011 (8) TMI 1207 - HC
  75. 2013 (5) TMI 734 - HC
  76. 2009 (12) TMI 511 - HC
  77. 2009 (8) TMI 1227 - HC
  78. 2009 (3) TMI 1062 - HC
  79. 2008 (9) TMI 882 - HC
  80. 2008 (8) TMI 943 - HC
  81. 2008 (4) TMI 500 - HC
  82. 2007 (9) TMI 697 - HC
  83. 2007 (8) TMI 782 - HC
  84. 2007 (4) TMI 364 - HC
  85. 2007 (2) TMI 313 - HC
  86. 2024 (8) TMI 1342 - AT
  87. 2022 (12) TMI 1055 - AT
  88. 2022 (4) TMI 1367 - AT
  89. 2021 (10) TMI 1082 - AT
  90. 2021 (3) TMI 1378 - AT
  91. 2021 (4) TMI 207 - AT
  92. 2019 (12) TMI 1587 - AT
  93. 2019 (9) TMI 1144 - AT
  94. 2019 (8) TMI 529 - AT
  95. 2018 (10) TMI 1011 - AT
  96. 2018 (6) TMI 350 - AT
  97. 2017 (4) TMI 1471 - AT
  98. 2017 (4) TMI 521 - AT
  99. 2016 (6) TMI 1401 - AT
  100. 2014 (10) TMI 464 - AT
  101. 2019 (1) TMI 83 - Tri
  102. 2017 (10) TMI 1580 - Tri
  103. 2017 (4) TMI 1267 - Tri
Issues Involved:
1. Whether withdrawal of O.A. under section 19(1) of the DRT Act is a condition precedent to invoking the NPA Act.
2. Whether recourse to take possession of the secured assets under section 13(4) of the NPA Act includes the power to take actual possession of immovable property.
3. Whether ad valorem court fee under Rule 7 of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 is payable on an application under section 17(1) of the NPA Act in the absence of any rule framed under the said Act.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Withdrawal of O.A. under section 19(1) of the DRT Act as a Condition Precedent to Invoking the NPA Act:
The core question was whether banks or financial institutions (FIs) must withdraw their Original Applications (O.A.) filed under the DRT Act before invoking the NPA Act. The appellant argued that the notice under section 13(2) of the NPA Act is merely a show-cause notice and not an action, thus necessitating the withdrawal of the O.A. before invoking the NPA Act. The respondents contended that the notice under section 13(2) is an action and that the proviso to section 19(1) of the DRT Act is an enabling provision, not a mandatory one.

The judgment clarified that the NPA Act is enacted for quick enforcement of security interests and proceeds on the basis that the borrower's liability has crystallized. It emphasized that the NPA Act provides an additional remedy to the DRT Act, and the doctrine of election does not apply since both Acts aim at recovery of debts. The court held that withdrawal of the O.A. is not a pre-condition for taking recourse to the NPA Act, and banks/FIs have the discretion to apply for leave to withdraw the O.A. as per the circumstances.

2. Recourse to Take Possession of Secured Assets under Section 13(4) of the NPA Act:
The issue was whether section 13(4) of the NPA Act allows banks/FIs to take actual possession of immovable property. The appellant argued that actual possession should not be taken before adjudication by the DRT under section 17 of the NPA Act, as it would make the borrower's remedy illusory.

The court held that the word "possession" in section 13(4) does not distinguish between symbolic and actual possession. The NPA Act allows banks/FIs to take possession of the secured assets, including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment, or sale. The court emphasized that the NPA Act provides for recovery of possession by a non-adjudicatory process, and the DRT can restore possession to the borrower if the measures taken by the secured creditor are found invalid.

3. Ad Valorem Court Fee under Rule 7 of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993:
The question was whether ad valorem court fee prescribed under Rule 7 of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993, is payable on an application under section 17(1) of the NPA Act in the absence of any rule framed under the NPA Act. The appellants argued that the 2004 Order providing for fees became redundant after the amendment to section 17(1) of the NPA Act in 2004.

The court held that the terminology of original or appellate jurisdiction is irrelevant for the purpose of levy of fees. The 2004 Order, issued under section 40 of the NPA Act, continues to operate even after the amendment and provides for levying fees for filing an application under section 17(1) of the NPA Act. The court emphasized that the 2004 Order was issued to remove a deficiency and does not alter the scheme of the NPA Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court answered the issues in favor of the banks/FIs, holding that:
1. Withdrawal of the O.A. is not a pre-condition for invoking the NPA Act.
2. Section 13(4) of the NPA Act includes the power to take actual possession of immovable property.
3. Ad valorem court fee under Rule 7 of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993, is payable on an application under section 17(1) of the NPA Act as per the 2004 Order.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates