Supreme Court of India Judgements

46930 Judgements hosted as on 23/11/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: SARFAESI

SARFAESI

SARFAESI – Section 14(1A) – Taking of Possession of Secured Assets and Documents – Held, An advocate is and must be regarded as an officer of the court and subordinate to the CMM/DM for the purposes of Section 14(1A) of the 2002 Act – It is open to the District Magistrate (DM) or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) to appoint an advocate and authorise him/her to take possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto

Feb 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NKGSB COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SUBIR CHAKRAVARTY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…

SARFAESI

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 – Sections 13(4) and 17 – Writ petitions against the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was not required to be entertained by the High Court – Filing of the writ petition by the borrowers before the High Court is nothing but an abuse of process of Court

Jan 19, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. VISHWA BHARATI VIDYA MANDIR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

SARFAESI

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Non-Performing Asset – Recovery of loan by auction of mortgaged property – Appeal against order of high court granting benefit under the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme – No writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing a financial institution/bank to positively grant the benefit of One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme to a borrower

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE BIJNOR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BIJNOR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MEENAL AGARWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

SARFAESI

(SARFAESI) – Section 34 – Civil suit is attracted allegations of ‘fraud’ are made without any particulars – Suit was not maintainable in view of the bar contained under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act – Except the words used ‘fraud’/’fraudulent’ there are no specific particulars pleaded with respect to the ‘fraud’. It appears that by a clever drafting and using the words ‘fraud’/’fraudulent’ without any specific particulars with respect to the ‘fraud’,. Suit not maintainable

Nov 29, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.…

You missed

Constitution I B C

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Writ Petition (Criminal) — Seeking registration of FIR and investigation into attempt to influence judicial outcome — Relief for criminal investigation based on disclosure in a judicial order of NCLAT, Chennai Bench — Issues raised are of vital public importance but deemed capable of administrative resolution by Chief Justice of India — Writ Petition treated as a representation to bring material information for consideration of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, allowing law to take its course — Petition disposed of on administrative treatment of investigation request.

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XXI Rule 58 — Execution First Appeal — Partition Suit — Preliminary decree for partition — Inter se bidding — Joint owners (siblings) of property in equal shares (1/3rd each) — Property incapable of physical partition — Disposal of property via inter se bidding — Challenge to High Court order disposing of Execution Appeal on ground of offer matching — Where an offer of Rs.6.25 crores was made by the Appellant (Petitioner) and matched by the Respondents (2/3rd owners), the High Court directed Respondents to pay Appellant’s share after adjusting previous deposit — Supreme Court modified the approach, requiring the Petitioner to deposit 2/3rd of the bid (Rs.4.16 Crores) with Registry to demonstrate genuineness, pending further resolution. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 of Order dated 25.9.2025;

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw
Evidence Act

Evidence — Video Conference Deposition — Procedure for Confronting Witness — The Supreme Court clarified and directed that in cases where a witness’s statement is recorded via video conferencing and a previous written statement is to be used for confrontation, a copy of the statement must be transmitted electronically to the witness, and the procedure under Sections 147 and 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (or corresponding sections of the Evidence Act) must be followed to ensure fairness and integrity of the trial. Such directions are issued to avoid procedural irregularities and uphold the principles of fair trial, effective cross-examination, and proper appreciation of evidence.

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 [BNSS Section 528] — Quashing of FIR — Abuse of process — Factual matrix for all offences arose from a single transaction — Compromise accepted as genuine for some offences should equally dilute the foundation of other charges based on the same allegations — Continued prosecution for dacoity after settlement for other offences held unjustified and quashed.

Nov 23, 2025 sclaw