Whatsapp
RBI Guidelines on Quashing SARFAESI Proceedings for Non-Compliance under SARFAESI Act 2002
Introduction
The banking sector in India faces persistent challenges with non-performing assets that threaten the stability of financial institutions. To address these concerns, Parliament enacted the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act in 2002, commonly known as the SARFAESI Act [1]. This legislation empowers banks and financial institutions to recover their dues without court intervention by enforcing security interests over mortgaged or hypothecated properties. However, the effectiveness of this mechanism depends heavily on strict adherence to procedural requirements established both by the statute itself and by regulatory guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. When secured creditors fail to comply with these mandatory provisions, borrowers can seek judicial intervention to quash the recovery proceedings, thereby protecting their rights against arbitrary or unlawful actions.
The interplay between statutory compliance and judicial oversight has given rise to extensive case law defining the boundaries of permissible enforcement action. Courts have consistently held that while the SARFAESI Act, 2002 provides expedited recovery mechanisms, these powers cannot be exercised in derogation of fundamental procedural safeguards. Understanding the regulatory framework governing SARFAESI proceedings, the grounds for challenging non-compliance, and the remedies available to aggrieved borrowers is essential for all stakeholders in the debt recovery process.
Legislative Framework and RBI’s Regulatory Authority
The SARFAESI Act came into force on June 21, 2002, with the primary objective of enabling banks and financial institutions to realize long-term assets, manage problems of liquidity, asset-liability mismatch, and improve recovery by exercising powers to take possession of securities, sell them, and reduce non-performing assets without intervention of courts or tribunals [2]. The Act applies to scheduled commercial banks, financial institutions notified by the Central Government, and Asset Reconstruction Companies registered with the Reserve Bank of India.
The Reserve Bank of India exercises comprehensive regulatory authority over the implementation of the SARFAESI Act through various provisions. Under the statute, RBI is empowered to register and regulate Asset Reconstruction Companies, prescribe prudential norms for classification of assets, and issue guidelines governing the securitization and reconstruction of financial assets. This regulatory oversight ensures uniformity in the application of recovery mechanisms and protects the interests of both creditors and borrowers.
RBI’s Master Direction on Asset Reconstruction Companies, most recently updated in April 2024, consolidates all instructions relating to the registration, functioning, and supervision of ARCs [3]. These directions mandate that every ARC must maintain minimum capital requirements, constitute independent advisory committees, and follow board-approved policies for settlement of dues with borrowers. The regulatory framework emphasizes transparency in valuation of acquired assets, proper disclosure of track records to security receipt investors, and adherence to fair practices in dealing with borrowers.
Beyond ARCs, the RBI has issued comprehensive guidelines applicable to all banks and financial institutions exercising powers under the SARFAESI Act. These include norms for classification of accounts as non-performing assets, procedures for issuance of notices under various sections, requirements for valuation of secured assets before sale, and protocols for conducting auctions. The Master Circular on Income Recognition, Asset Classification, and Provisioning prescribes that an asset becomes non-performing when interest or principal remains overdue for a period exceeding ninety days. This classification serves as the foundation for initiating recovery action under the SARFAESI framework.
Procedural Requirements Under SARFAESI Act, 2002
The enforcement mechanism under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 follows a structured procedure designed to balance the creditor’s right to swift recovery with the borrower’s right to fair treatment. These procedural requirements are not merely directory but constitute mandatory safeguards whose violation can invalidate the entire recovery process.
The first critical step involves classification of the borrower’s account as a non-performing asset in accordance with RBI guidelines. The Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India clarified that this classification is an essential prerequisite for invoking the provisions of the Act, ensuring that extraordinary powers are exercised only in genuine cases of default [4]. Banks cannot arbitrarily declare an account as non-performing; such classification must strictly conform to the prudential norms prescribed by the regulatory authority.
Once an account is classified as non-performing, the secured creditor must issue a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the borrower. This notice must contain comprehensive details including the exact amount of outstanding debt with breakup of principal and interest, complete particulars of the security interest created, details of the borrower and guarantors if any, and a clear sixty-day period for discharge of liabilities. The demand notice serves as both formal communication regarding outstanding dues and a statutory prerequisite for exercising coercive powers of enforcement.
The Supreme Court in Transcore v. Union of India held that the demand notice under Section 13(2) is not merely a show cause notice but constitutes the initiation of action under the SARFAESI Act [5]. Therefore, banks must exercise due diligence in preparing these notices, ensuring accuracy in computation of outstanding amounts and proper identification of the secured creditor. Technical errors in the demand notice, such as incorrect naming of the lending entity or miscalculation of dues, can provide grounds for challenging the subsequent enforcement action.
After issuing the notice under Section 13(2), the secured creditor must consider any reply or objections raised by the borrower within the sixty-day period. Following the Mardia Chemicals judgment, Parliament inserted Section 13(3A) requiring secured creditors to communicate reasons for rejecting borrower objections within one week. This amendment recognizes the borrower’s right to be heard before coercive measures are taken, though the reasons provided do not confer an independent right to challenge the decision before tribunals at that stage.
If the borrower fails to discharge the liability within sixty days and the creditor decides to proceed with enforcement, additional procedural requirements come into play. Before taking physical possession of secured assets, the authorized officer must issue possession notices under Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. These include a notice to the borrower under Rule 8(1) and publication of the possession notice in two leading newspapers under Rule 8(2), with both notices to be issued at least seven days before taking actual possession. Courts have consistently held that these notice requirements serve the dual purpose of informing the borrower directly and ensuring public transparency in the enforcement process.
Grounds for Quashing SARFAESI Proceedings
The jurisdiction to quash SARFAESI proceedings arises primarily before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, which allows any person aggrieved by measures taken under Section 13(4) to file an application within forty-five days. However, High Courts also possess jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to intervene in cases involving violation of fundamental rights or where the statutory remedy is inadequate. The grounds for challenging SARFAESI proceedings have evolved through extensive judicial interpretation.
Non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements constitutes the most common ground for quashing enforcement action. When banks fail to issue proper notices under Section 13(2) or Rule 8, proceed to take possession without waiting for the expiry of prescribed time periods, or conduct auctions without following the stipulated procedures, courts have not hesitated to invalidate such actions. The Karnataka High Court in K.R. Krishnegowda v. Kotak Mahindra Bank quashed possession orders where the bank had bypassed the mandatory requirement of issuing possession notices under Rule 8 before invoking Section 14 to obtain assistance from civil authorities [6]. The court emphasized that such notices are not mere formalities but essential procedural safeguards upholding principles of natural justice.
However, not every procedural deviation warrants quashing of proceedings. The Supreme Court has distinguished between substantial compliance and technical non-compliance that causes no prejudice to the borrower. In L&T Housing Finance Ltd. v. Trishul Developers, the apex court held that trivial procedural lapses cannot nullify SARFAESI proceedings initiated by secured creditors unless substantial prejudice is caused to the defaulter [7]. In that case, the Debt Recovery Tribunal had quashed a demand notice because it bore the seal of “L&T Finance Ltd.” instead of “L&T Housing Finance Ltd.” despite both being group companies using common letterheads. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, noting that the borrower had never expressed confusion about which entity was taking action and had consistently acknowledged the debt and the enforcement proceedings.
The principle emerging from these decisions is that courts must examine whether the alleged non-compliance goes to the root of the matter or constitutes a mere irregularity. Where the borrower can demonstrate that procedural violations deprived them of a fair opportunity to respond, challenge the debt, or exercise redemption rights, courts will intervene. Conversely, where the borrower seeks to exploit technical defects without showing any actual prejudice, courts are reluctant to interfere with the recovery process.
Misclassification of accounts as non-performing assets provides another important ground for challenge. Since NPA classification is the foundation for invoking SARFAESI powers, any arbitrary or premature classification can be questioned. Borrowers must establish that the classification does not conform to RBI guidelines or that the account was declared non-performing without following prescribed procedures. The burden lies on the borrower to demonstrate that the classification was erroneous, as courts generally presume that banks follow regulatory norms unless contrary evidence is presented.
Disputes regarding the quantum of debt or the validity of security interest also form bases for challenging SARFAESI proceedings. When genuine disputes exist about whether money is owed, how much is owed, or whether proper security was created, these issues must be resolved before enforcement can proceed. However, borrowers cannot raise frivolous or vexatious disputes merely to delay recovery. Courts examine whether the dispute is bona fide and requires detailed investigation of evidence, or whether it is a transparent attempt to frustrate legitimate recovery efforts.
Judicial Precedents on Non-Compliance
The constitutional validity of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 itself was first tested in the landmark case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, decided by the Supreme Court on April 8, 2004 [4]. The petitioners challenged various provisions of the Act arguing that it granted unchecked powers to banks without judicial oversight, violated principles of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity of hearing, and imposed unfair conditions for approaching appellate forums. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of most provisions while striking down Section 17(2) which required borrowers to deposit seventy-five percent of the amount claimed by banks before filing appeals.
The court recognized that the Act serves a legitimate legislative purpose of addressing the serious problem of mounting non-performing assets that threaten the stability of the banking system. However, it also emphasized that the exercise of coercive powers must be accompanied by adequate safeguards protecting borrower rights. The judgment led to significant amendments including insertion of Section 13(3A) requiring banks to provide reasons for rejecting borrower objections, and modification of Section 17 to reduce pre-deposit requirements for filing appeals before Debt Recovery Tribunals.
More recent jurisprudence has focused on the circumstances under which confirmed sales under the SARFAESI Act can be set aside. In Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna, decided in December 2024, the Supreme Court clarified that procedural irregularities or minor deviations from statutory rules are insufficient grounds for overturning confirmed sales [8]. The court held that only fundamental errors such as fraud, collusion, inadequate pricing, or underbidding that go to the core of the sale process could justify setting aside a confirmed auction. This ruling emphasizes the sanctity of completed transactions and warns against unnecessary judicial interference that could disrupt the recovery process and undermine legal certainty.
The judgment in Celir also addressed the question of timing in exercising redemption rights. The court held that borrowers cannot invoke redemption rights after publication of auction notices, as such belated attempts frustrate the entire purpose of expedited recovery mechanisms. The right of redemption under Section 13(8) must be exercised before the crucial stage when the bank publicly invites bids for the secured asset. Once the auction process commences, allowing redemption would render the carefully structured timeline under the Rules meaningless and prejudice prospective bidders who invest time and resources in participating.
Courts have also examined the interplay between SARFAESI proceedings and other legal remedies available to creditors. The principle established is that once a secured creditor chooses to proceed under the SARFAESI Act, parallel proceedings under other laws may be barred unless specific provisions allow such concurrent actions. However, the proviso to Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act requires secured creditors to seek tribunal permission before withdrawing applications filed under that Act to proceed under SARFAESI, ensuring that borrowers are not prejudiced by arbitrary forum-shopping.
Role of Debt Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Forums
The Debt Recovery Tribunal constitutes the primary forum for adjudicating disputes arising from SARFAESI proceedings. Any person including the borrower who is aggrieved by measures taken under Section 13(4) can approach the DRT under Section 17 within forty-five days from the date on which such measures are taken. The nature of proceedings before the DRT is not appellate but original, as the Supreme Court clarified in Mardia Chemicals that Section 17 applications are akin to civil suits instituted for the first time.
The DRT possesses wide powers to examine whether the measures taken by secured creditors comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. Where the Tribunal finds that measures under Section 13(4) are not in accordance with law, it can restore possession of secured assets to the borrower, as provided under Section 17(3). However, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to examining compliance with statutory provisions and does not extend to adjudicating complex title disputes or determining the validity of underlying contractual arrangements that fall within the domain of civil courts.
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal hears appeals against orders passed by the DRT, as provided under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. Originally, appeals could be filed only after depositing fifty percent of the amount of debt due, but amendments following the Mardia Chemicals judgment introduced a graduated structure reducing this burden. The current provisions allow appeals on depositing fifty percent for the first Rs. 1 crore and twenty-five percent for amounts exceeding that threshold. These pre-deposit requirements balance the need for appellate access with the objective of preventing frivolous litigation.
An important limitation on Tribunal jurisdiction concerns the timing of intervention. While the DRT can examine measures taken under Section 13(4), it generally cannot interfere with proceedings at earlier stages such as issuance of notices under Section 13(2). The Supreme Court has held that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is specifically circumscribed by statutory language, and attempts to expand it through liberal interpretation would undermine the carefully balanced legislative scheme. However, where fundamental procedural violations occur at the notice stage that affect the validity of subsequent enforcement measures, the Tribunal can take cognizance as part of its examination of Section 13(4) actions.
Courts have also addressed the question of whether limitation principles apply to Section 17 applications. Several High Courts have taken divergent views on whether the Limitation Act, 1963, particularly Section 5 allowing condonation of delay, applies to applications filed beyond the forty-five day period. Some courts treat Section 17 applications as akin to suits where Section 5 does not apply, while others recognize them as applications under special statutes where condonation may be permissible. This jurisprudential uncertainty creates challenges for borrowers who may have legitimate grounds for delay but face rejection on limitation grounds.
Recent Developments and RBI Guidelines
The regulatory landscape governing SARFAESI proceedings continues to evolve through periodic guidelines and circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India. In January 2025, RBI issued revised guidelines on settlement of dues payable by borrowers to Asset Reconstruction Companies, amending paragraph 15 of the Master Direction on ARCs [9]. These guidelines mandate that every ARC must frame a board-approved policy for settlements covering aspects such as cut-off dates for one-time settlement eligibility, permissible sacrifice for various categories of exposures, and methodology for arriving at realizable value of securities.
The updated framework requires that settlements should be considered only after all possible recovery avenues have been exhausted and settlement represents the best available option. The Net Present Value of settlement amounts should generally not be less than the realizable value of securities, and any significant variation between valuations at the time of acquisition and settlement must be documented with reasons. These provisions aim to prevent fire-sale settlements that compromise creditor interests while ensuring that borrowers receive fair consideration when they propose resolution arrangements.
RBI has also issued guidelines on display of information regarding secured assets possessed under the SARFAESI Act. Through a circular dated September 25, 2023, the Reserve Bank directed all regulated entities to publish comprehensive details about possessed assets on their websites, including the location, type of asset, date of possession, and reserve price for sale. This transparency measure serves dual purposes of preventing fraudulent claims by unauthorized persons and ensuring wide publicity for auctions to maximize realization values.
The Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises issued by RBI in 2019 and subsequently modified creates special protections for MSME borrowers. Under this framework, banks and financial institutions must follow specific procedures before classifying MSME accounts as non-performing assets or initiating recovery actions. The Supreme Court in recent judgments has held that the Framework is binding on secured creditors, and MSMEs can invoke its provisions to seek resolution of stressed accounts before coercive measures are taken. However, borrowers cannot misuse these provisions by raising MSME status at belated stages after enforcement processes have substantially concluded.
Another significant development concerns the interplay between SARFAESI proceedings and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. While both statutes provide mechanisms for debt recovery, they operate on different principles and timelines. Courts have addressed situations where creditors initiate parallel proceedings under both laws, holding that once insolvency proceedings commence, the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC generally stays SARFAESI actions. However, secured creditors retain certain rights under the Code, and coordination between both regimes requires careful navigation.
Challenges and Practical Considerations
Despite the robust legal framework governing SARFAESI proceedings, implementation challenges persist. One recurring issue concerns the accuracy of information in demand notices and public advertisements. Banks sometimes issue notices containing errors in the description of secured assets, computation of outstanding amounts, or identification of parties. While courts distinguish between material errors that vitiate proceedings and technical mistakes that can be corrected, this distinction is not always clear-cut, leading to litigation and delays.
The valuation of secured assets before sale presents another practical difficulty. The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules require that assets be sold for not less than the reserve price determined by valuers appointed by the secured creditor. However, borrowers frequently challenge valuations as unreasonably high or low, arguing that such pricing prevents fair auctions or leads to inadequate realization that still leaves them liable for deficiency. Courts generally defer to valuations by qualified professionals unless borrowers can establish that the valuation process itself was flawed or that collusion affected the outcome.
The timeline for completing SARFAESI proceedings, while shorter than traditional litigation, still extends over months and sometimes years due to various factors. Borrowers exercise rights under Section 13(3A) to raise objections, file applications under Section 17 before the DRT, and pursue appeals to the DRAT and High Courts. At each stage, courts may grant interim stays preventing sale of secured assets, effectively prolonging the recovery process. While such judicial intervention protects borrowers from precipitate action, it also undermines the statute’s objective of expedited resolution.
The interaction between SARFAESI enforcement and other legal proceedings creates additional complexity. Borrowers sometimes file civil suits challenging the validity of mortgage deeds or sale agreements, raising title disputes that fall outside the DRT’s jurisdiction. In such cases, secured creditors face the dilemma of proceeding with enforcement at the risk of having sales set aside if the civil court ultimately rules in the borrower’s favor, or waiting for civil litigation to conclude thereby defeating the purpose of expedited recovery.
Banking institutions also confront challenges in complying with ever-expanding regulatory requirements while maintaining efficiency in recovery operations. Each new guideline or circular from RBI, while serving legitimate policy objectives, adds to the compliance burden. Banks must train their recovery officers, update internal processes, and ensure that authorized officers at branches follow uniform procedures. Lapses at the implementation level can provide grounds for challenging otherwise legitimate enforcement actions, as demonstrated by cases where possession was taken without proper newspaper publication or notices were not served at the borrower’s correct address.
Conclusion
The regulatory framework established by the SARFAESI Act and RBI guidelines represents a carefully balanced system designed to facilitate efficient debt recovery while protecting borrower rights through mandatory procedural safeguards. The power to quash enforcement proceedings for non-compliance serves as an essential check against arbitrary exercise of coercive powers by secured creditors. Judicial precedents have refined the boundaries of permissible enforcement action, establishing that while technical irregularities causing no prejudice will not invalidate proceedings, substantial non-compliance with mandatory provisions renders such actions vulnerable to challenge.
The evolution of this legal landscape through landmark judgments from Mardia Chemicals to recent Supreme Court decisions demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fairness in the debt recovery process. Courts have rejected the extremes of both rigid formalism that would allow borrowers to exploit minor procedural defects and uncritical deference to creditor actions that would render statutory safeguards meaningless. The principle that emerges is one of substantial compliance combined with protection of essential rights, where the focus remains on whether borrowers received fair notice and opportunity to respond rather than on technical perfection in documentation.
Looking forward, the effectiveness of the SARFAESI Act framework will depend on continued vigilance by regulatory authorities in issuing clear guidelines, by secured creditors in meticulously following prescribed procedures, and by courts in distinguishing between legitimate enforcement and overreaching. The recent emphasis on transparency through public disclosure requirements, fair valuation practices, and special protections for vulnerable borrowers like MSMEs suggests a maturing regulatory approach. However, challenges remain in harmonizing the objectives of swift recovery with the fundamental requirement of procedural fairness. Success in addressing these challenges will determine whether the SARFAESI Act fulfills its promise of providing an efficient yet equitable mechanism for resolving the persistent problem of non-performing assets in India’s banking sector.
References
[1] The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act No. 54 of 2002). Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2114
[2] Civilsdaily. (2023). RBI asks for SARFAESI Act Compliance. Available at: https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/rbi-asks-for-sarfaesi-act-compliance/
[3] Reserve Bank of India. (2024). Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Asset Reconstruction Companies) Directions, 2024. Available at: https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_ViewMasDirections.aspx
[4] Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1059476/
[5] Transcore v. Union of India, (2008) 1 SCC 125. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=transcore+union+of+india
[6] K.R. Krishnegowda v. Kotak Mahindra Bank, Karnataka High Court. Available at: https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/mandatory-notice-requirement-before-possession-under-sarfaesi-act:-karnataka-high-court-judgment/view
[7] L&T Housing Finance Ltd. v. Trishul Developers, Civil Appeal No. 3413 of 2020. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/trivial-procedural-lapses-not-a-reason-to-nullify-sarfaesi-proceedings-initiated-by-secured-creditors-165091
[8] Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna, Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 158-159 of 2024. Available at: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/9980/9980_2024_15_1503_58012_Judgement_13-Dec-2024.pdf
[9] Reserve Bank of India. (2025). RBI Guidelines on Settlement of Dues of Borrowers by ARCs. Circular No. DoR.SIG.FIN.REC.56/26.03.001/2024-25 dated January 20, 2025. Available at: https://ibclaw.in/guidelines-on-settlement-of-dues-of-borrowers-by-arcs/
