Analysis of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002

The Scope and Application of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002: A Judicial Exposition

Introduction

The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was enacted to provide a swift and efficient mechanism for banks and financial institutions to recover non-performing assets (NPAs). While the Act empowers secured creditors to enforce their security interests without the intervention of courts or tribunals,[6, 8] it also incorporates safeguards to protect the interests of borrowers and other affected parties. Central to these safeguards is Section 17, which provides a right to appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) against measures taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Act. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of Section 17, examining its legislative framework, scope, judicial interpretation, and its role in balancing the rights of creditors and debtors within the Indian legal landscape.

Legislative Framework and Purpose of Section 17

Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, titled "Application against measures to recover secured debts" (as amended), serves as the primary recourse for persons aggrieved by the enforcement actions of secured creditors. The Supreme Court in CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. SMT. PRABHA JAIN[7] outlined the core provisions:

Under Section 17(1) of the Act, "Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in subsection (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may make an application… to the Debts Recovery Tribunal..". From Section 17(2), (3) and (4) of the SARFAESI Act, it is clear that the Tribunal has the power to examine whether "..any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor are in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder." The Tribunal has the power to pass consequential orders as provided in Section 17(3).

The Gujarat High Court in Punjab National Bank v. Mithilanchal Industries Pvt. Ltd.[11] further elaborated on the scheme:

  • Sub-section (1) allows an aggrieved person to approach the DRT within 45 days from the date such measures were taken.
  • Sub-section (2) mandates the DRT to consider if the creditor's actions under Section 13(4) comply with the Act and its rules.
  • Sub-section (3) empowers the DRT, upon finding non-compliance, to declare the action invalid and order restoration of management or possession.
  • Sub-section (4) states that if the DRT finds the creditor's actions valid, the creditor can proceed with recovery.

The primary purpose of Section 17 is to provide a judicial check on the extensive powers granted to secured creditors, ensuring that such powers are exercised in conformity with the law and principles of natural justice. It acts as an appellate mechanism, as noted in Standard Chartered Bank v. V. Noble Kumar And Others.[1] The Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. And Others v. Union Of India And Others[3] upheld the constitutionality of the SARFAESI Act, except for the original Section 17(2) which mandated a pre-deposit of 75% of the claimed amount for an appeal by the borrower. This onerous condition was struck down as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,[3, 13] leading to amendments that made the remedy more accessible.

Scope and Ambit of Section 17

Who Can Apply? - "Any Person"

Section 17(1) uses the term "any person (including borrower)," indicating a broad locus standi. The Supreme Court in United Bank Of India v. Satyawati Tondon And Others[2] affirmed that the expression "any person" is of wide import, encompassing not only the borrower but also guarantors or any other person affected by the creditor's measures.[16] This interpretation has been consistently followed. For instance:

  • An auction purchaser aggrieved by the forfeiture of deposit money by the bank can approach the DRT under Section 17.[17] The Bombay High Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Florita Buildcon Private Limited[23] also held that "any person" is wide enough to cover a successful auction purchaser challenging measures under Section 13(4).
  • A lessee may also fall under "any person," although the power of the DRT to restore possession to a lessee might be limited compared to a borrower, as discussed in M/S. N.C.M.L. Industries Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow And Others.[15]

When Does the Right to Apply Arise?

An application under Section 17 can be made within 45 days from the date on which measures under Section 13(4) are taken.[11, 13] A crucial question has been whether the remedy under Section 17 arises only after actual or symbolic possession is taken. The Kerala High Court in K. Sami v. Bank Of India[12] opined that an aggrieved person need not wait until actual dispossession. The very act of the financial institution approaching a Magistrate under Section 14 (for assistance in taking possession) would constitute a measure under Section 13(4) against which an appeal can be filed. This view is supported by the Allahabad High Court in M/S. New Deluxe Ice Cream, Allahabad & Another v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad & Others,[21] which held that an application under Section 17(1) is maintainable even before actual physical possession is taken, once measures under Section 13(4) are initiated.

Jurisdiction and Powers of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT)

The DRT's jurisdiction under Section 17 is specific: to examine whether the measures taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) are in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the rules made thereunder.[7, 11]

  • The Supreme Court in Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank And Another v. Ashok Saw Mill[4] clarified that the DRT's jurisdiction under Section 17 encompasses not only the initial possession actions under Section 13(4) but also any subsequent measures, including the sale of secured assets. This ensures comprehensive oversight.
  • If the DRT finds the measures non-compliant, it can declare them invalid and may direct the restoration of management or possession of the secured assets to the borrower.[11, 15]
  • However, the DRT, while examining the validity of measures under Section 17, does not typically adjudicate the exact amount due to the secured creditor. The scope is primarily to assess the legality of the enforcement process.[22] This was also highlighted in K.R Chandrasekaran v. Union Of India,[10] which noted that disputes regarding NPA classification should be resolved by internal mechanisms, while Section 17 provides recourse against measures like taking possession.

The DRT's power to restore possession is primarily for the benefit of the borrower. In M/S. N.C.M.L. Industries Ltd.,[15] the Allahabad High Court observed that even if a lessee makes an application, and the DRT finds the lease valid and binding, it may not have the power to restore possession to the lessee, as sub-section (3) of Section 17 speaks of restoring possession to the borrower.

Grounds for Challenge under Section 17

The primary ground for an application under Section 17 is that the measures taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) are not in accordance with the SARFAESI Act or the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. This can include a wide range of procedural and substantive illegalities, such as:

  • Defects in the demand notice under Section 13(2).[8, 9]
  • Improper classification of the account as NPA.[10]
  • Failure to consider the borrower's representation/objections under Section 13(3A).[1]
  • Non-compliance with the rules for taking possession (Rule 8 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002).[1, 19]
  • Irregularities in the sale process, including valuation and publication of sale notice.[19]
  • Fraud or forgery, as hypothetically instanced in K. Sami v. Bank Of India.[12]

Interplay of Section 17 with Other Provisions and Laws

Section 13(4) and Section 17

Section 17 is intrinsically linked to Section 13(4). The measures listed in Section 13(4) – such as taking possession of secured assets, taking over management, appointing a manager, or requiring debtors of the borrower to pay the secured creditor – are the actions that trigger the right to apply under Section 17.[7, 11] The Supreme Court in Transcore v. Union Of India And Another[6] recognized that the NPA Act (SARFAESI Act) allows enforcement of security interests without court intervention, and Section 17 acts as a check on these powers.

Section 14 and Section 17

Section 14 allows a secured creditor to seek the assistance of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to take possession of the secured asset. The Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank v. V. Noble Kumar And Others[1] clarified that invoking Section 14 is one of the modes of taking possession under Section 13(4). Therefore, when a creditor approaches the Magistrate under Section 14, it is considered a measure under Section 13(4), and an aggrieved person can file an application under Section 17.[1, 12]

Section 17 and Civil Court Jurisdiction

Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of any matter which a DRT or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the Act to determine. Since Section 17 empowers the DRT to adjudicate upon the legality of measures taken under Section 13(4), civil courts generally do not have jurisdiction over such matters.[7, 16] The Supreme Court in CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. SMT. PRABHA JAIN[7] explicitly stated that "it is only the Tribunal that has the jurisdiction to determine whether 'any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor' are in accordance with the Act or Rules thereunder." However, Misons Leather Ltd.[13] (citing Mardia Chemicals) acknowledged a narrow scope for civil suits on limited grounds, such as fraud.

Section 17 and Writ Jurisdiction (Article 226)

The judiciary has consistently emphasized that when an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 17 is available, High Courts should be circumspect in entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in United Bank Of India v. Satyawati Tondon And Others[2] strongly deprecated the practice of High Courts entertaining writ petitions challenging SARFAESI actions, urging that parties be relegated to the remedy under Section 17. This principle has been reiterated in numerous High Court judgments.[14, 16, 24, 25] The existence of an alternative remedy under Section 17 is a significant factor in the High Court's decision to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction.[14]

Impact of Amendments to Section 17

The most significant amendment to Section 17 arose from the Mardia Chemicals[3] judgment, which struck down the pre-deposit requirement of Section 17(2). As noted in Misons Leather Ltd.,[13] Section 17 was amended by Act 30 of 2004 in light of this decision, making the remedy more accessible to borrowers and aggrieved persons.

Judicial Interpretation of Section 17 - Further Analysis of Key Precedents

The judiciary has played a crucial role in shaping the contours of Section 17.

  • In Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union Of India,[3] the Supreme Court, while upholding the Act's overall validity, underscored the importance of a fair adjudicatory mechanism for borrowers. Striking down the pre-deposit clause of Section 17(2) was pivotal in ensuring that the right to appeal was not rendered illusory. This judgment also clarified that the DRT's role under Section 17 is to examine the creditor's actions post-notice under Section 13(4).
  • Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank v. Ashok Saw Mill[4] expanded the DRT's oversight by confirming its jurisdiction over all measures taken by secured creditors, including post-possession actions like asset sales, thereby providing a continuous check on the enforcement process.
  • The principle of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction was firmly established by United Bank Of India v. Satyawati Tondon,[2] which has become a locus classicus on this point, guiding High Courts to direct aggrieved parties to the DRT under Section 17.[16, 24, 25]
  • Standard Chartered Bank v. V. Noble Kumar[1] clarified the relationship between Sections 13(4), 14, and 17, affirming that Section 14 is a mechanism to effectuate a Section 13(4) measure, and Section 17 provides the appellate remedy against such measures.
  • Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank[17] is significant for extending the protection of Section 17 to auction purchasers, holding that an auction purchaser challenging the forfeiture of their deposit by the bank has a remedy under Section 17 before the DRT. This was echoed by the Bombay High Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Florita Buildcon Private Limited.[23]
  • The judgment in CELIR LLP v. BAFNA MOTORS (MUMBAI) PVT. LTD.,[5] while primarily focused on the right of redemption under Section 13(8), implicitly reinforces the DRT's role under Section 17 as the forum for challenging the auction process if statutory violations occur, although it cautioned against undue High Court interference when statutory remedies are available.
  • The Delhi High Court in Urmila Kumari Petitioner v. Om Prakash Jangra And Ors. S (2015 SCC ONLINE DEL 8283)[19] dealt with a securitization application under Section 17 where the borrower challenged the auction sale on various procedural grounds, illustrating the typical nature of disputes adjudicated by the DRT under this section.
  • The Karnataka High Court in Bhuwalka Steel Industries Limited v. Indian Overseas Bank[20] considered the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, an important procedural aspect concerning the 45-day time limit.

It is also pertinent to note Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act, which states that its provisions are "in addition to, and not in derogation of" other laws, including the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act).[8] This underscores that Section 17 operates within a broader legal framework, complementing other recovery and adjudicatory mechanisms where applicable, though SARFAESI provides a distinct and often overriding procedure for secured assets.

Challenges and Considerations

While Section 17 provides a crucial safeguard, its effectiveness can be influenced by several factors. The volume of cases before DRTs can lead to delays, potentially undermining the objective of swift resolution that the SARFAESI Act aims for. The interpretation of "measures taken" and the precise point at which the 45-day limitation period commences can sometimes be contentious. Furthermore, the extent to which DRTs can delve into complex issues of fraud or the quantum of debt (beyond the legality of measures) under Section 17 remains a subject of nuanced judicial interpretation.[22] The capacity of DRTs to grant effective interim relief is also a critical aspect affecting the protection afforded to aggrieved parties.

Conclusion

Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, stands as a cornerstone of borrower protection within a legislative framework designed to expedite debt recovery. Judicial pronouncements have significantly shaped its interpretation, broadening the scope of "any person" who can seek redressal and clarifying the extensive jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal to scrutinize actions taken by secured creditors under Section 13(4). The striking down of the onerous pre-deposit requirement by the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals[3] has made this remedy practically accessible. The consistent stance of the higher judiciary on exhausting this statutory remedy before approaching High Courts under writ jurisdiction further underscores the importance of Section 17 as the primary forum for challenging SARFAESI measures.

By providing a mechanism for judicial review of creditors' actions, Section 17 aims to ensure that the powerful tools for debt recovery are wielded fairly and in accordance with the law, thereby striving to maintain a crucial balance between the interests of financial institutions in recovering dues and the rights of individuals affected by the enforcement of security interests.

References