Challenges Faced By Nationalized Banks In Initiating Sarfaesi Action

Paper Details 

Paper Code: RP-VBCL-05-2025

Category: Research Paper

Date of Publication: April 20, 2025

Citation: Ms. Neha Das, “Challenges Faced By Nationalized Banks In Initiating Sarfaesi Action", 2, AIJVBCL, 63, 63-73 (2025).

Author Details: Ms. Neha Das, Research Scholar of Ph.D., Dpt. of Law, University of Burdwan, West Bengal

Download PDF

ABSTRACT 

“Non-performing assets (NPAs)” are viewed as a significant hurdle of the Finance Sector. In order to empower the Banksin debt recovery,“Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002” was established. However, significant challenges are beingexperienced byFinance Sector in India at the time of enforcement of SARFAESI action against defaulter debtors. This research paper examines the legal, procedural and operational barriers faced by Banks in initiating “SARFAESI” action. The key challenge in the recovery process under “SARFAESI” is prolonged litigation. Often, to save their skin, borrowers file miscellaneous cases in “Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs)”, “Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs)”. Such propaganda delays the process of recovery. Further, contrary judicial interpretation also produces ambiguities, which reduces confidence of the banker to initiate “SARFAESI” action with full zeal. Sometimes, lack of co-operation from the local authorities at the time of taking possession, failure of enforcement agencies and district administration to provide support in enforcement of security under “SARFAESI”, political interference, social obstruction especially in agricultural borrowers and borrowers of small and medium enterprises reduces the efficacy of the Act. Such factors make it difficult for the nationalized banks to take conclusive measures. Another major hurdle in the “SARFAESI” action is disposal of secured assets through banks. Proper asset valuation is required for sale of secured property of mortgagor; however, Banks often struggle with the issue of undervaluation which leads to litigation. Further, deficiency of prospective bidders and auction failure aid to the distress of the secured assets. This research paper emphasizes the challenges faced by nationalized banks in initiating“SARFAESI” action and suggest recommendations for the application of the Act in a better practical way.

Key Words:SARFAESI Act, 2002, NPA, Recovery, Debt Recovery Tribunals, Secured Creditor

INTRODUCTION

Nationalized Banks are known for their low-interest rate loans. Giving credit or loan to individuals who are in need of assistance is the main target of Nationalized Banks. Because, the interest earned by these loans is the primary source of their income. Even the principal loan amount adds to the growth of Banking Industry. But this opportunity of earning and achieving financial growth turns to nightmare when borrowers become defaulters due to non-repayment of their loan amount. In such scenario, these accounts are deemed to be labelled as “NPA” as per the norms of the Reserve Bank of India and eligible for recovery action taken against them.

As per “section 2 (1) (o) (a)” of “Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002”, “when a Bank or Financial Institution classifies an account or asset of a borrower as doubtful, sub-standard or loss asset, it is called NPA account”. Later, in March 2004, under the recommendation of Narsimham Committee, a criterion for declaring the account as NPA was ascertained.[1]

Therefore, from March 2004, any loan account overdue for 90 days, was regarded as “non-performing assets (NPA)”.[2] It would not be wrong to say that “Non-Performing Asset (NPA)”is the critical obstacle dealt with by the Nationalized Banks. These accounts are draining capital as well as resources and time, leaving the Banking Industry financially exhausted.

As a conventional method of recovery, civil suit was used to be filed by the creditor banks to reclaim debts from the borrower. But such procedure was so lengthy and tedious. Firstly, after filing of civil suit for recovery, summons was used to be sent to borrowers along with co-borrowers and guarantor, if any, for filing his written statement presenting his say on the matter.

After that, hearing was used to be commenced. Those hearing used to take generally a time period of 5 years to 20 years to be concluded. In such a scenario, it was very difficult to take the advantage of civil suit as no monetary benefits was reaped by the creditor. Whereas suit regarding debt recovery is required to be disposed of immediately because of involving public money at large.

To eradicate such difficulty in disposing of the matter through Civil Suit, Narsimham Committee (II), chaired by MaidavoluNarsimham, and Verma Committee, chaired by Justice Jagdish Sharan Verma, have recommended to enact the “Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002)”. Hence, with the assent of the President of India, “SARFAESI Act, 2002” was enacted on June 21, 2002.[3]

The main aim for the Act’s execution was to contribute in the debt retrieval byfinancial service provider without the intervention of Court. Hence, we may say that the passing of the legislation was done for efficient recovery of debt. The Act provides significant support to nationalized Banks in debt recovery but there are still considerable challenges in implementation of the provisions of the statute which impede its effectiveness.

“Non-performing Assets” are the prime concern of Nationalized Banks. To recover the dues from the borrowers, various legal measures have been taken by the statutory authorities. But the traditional procedure of recovering the loan amount is not up to the mark. For the betterment of the situation of NPAs of nationalized banks, “SARFAESI Act, 2002” was enacted which can securitizes the assets of the borrower without the interference of the court. But there are various instances which proves the efficacy of “SARFESI Act, 2002” to be hindered by many legal and procedural aspects. The significance of the study is to analyse the challenges faced by Nationalized Banks and provide measures to curb those challenges for efficient debt recovery through SARFAESI mechanism.

To evaluate the pragmatic impediments encountered by the Nationalized Banks in the implementation of “SARFAESI” Action and to provide concrete solutions for mitigating the challenges faced by nationalized Banks in exercising the “SARFAESI” action is the foremost objective of this Research Paper.This paper examines the various challenges, particularly, Legal & procedural and Operational challenges.

LEGAL & PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES IN INITIATING SARFAESI ACTION

The Govt. of India has enacted special laws like “SARFAESI Act” to hasten the recovery technique of “non-performing assets”. These special Acts have vested the financial organization with extra-ordinary command for self-enforcement of security interest given as collateral per mortgage in favor of the lenders. There are different stages of debt collection system under “SARFAESI Act, 2002” from issuing “demand notice” under “sec. 13(2)” of the Act to taking “possession” under “sec. 13(4)” of the Act, each stage faces various legal and procedural challenges as enumerated below: -

Judicial Intervention And Stay Orders- “SARFAESI Act, 2002” was enacted to minimize intervention of the court in the matter of debt recovery, so, prolonged litigation may be avoided. But during research work what was found is totally different from the very motive of “SARFAESI Act, 2002”. Generally, recovery through “SARFAESI” is obtained by repossessing the borrowers’ collateral and after selling the property through auction, private treaty, public tender etc. But, for avoiding physical possession through “SARFAESI” action, borrowers frequently knock the doors of “Debt Recovery Tribunals” for staying possession. The borrower applies for interlocutory reliefs and brings a halt to the process of physical possession and hence hamper recovery proceedings. Many a time, it is observed that after getting adverse order from “Debt Recovery Tribunal”, borrowers file appeal to “Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals”, High Court and even to Supreme Courts. Such approach of borrowers makes the process of recovery through “SARFAESI” Action, complex. It often leads to prolonged litigation, hence turning the benefits of “SARFAESI” futile.

Strict Compliance Of Sec 13(2) And 13(4)-The initial step of implementation of “SARFAESI” Action is issuing “Demand Notice” under “Section 13(2)” of the Act, a notice providing the borrower with the time period of 60 long days to pay back the loan or else “Possession” of his property will be repossessed by the Bank under “Section 13(4)”. If borrower denies providing peaceful control of the collateral at the time of execution of the provision 13(4), an application to District Magistrate (DM) office / Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) office may be filed by the Bank for reclaiming control over the collateral property.

These provisions seem so handy and of easy execution, but reality is far away from it which is observed during the study. As a little procedural lapse in the execution of “sec 13(2)” and “13(4)” leads to quashing of whole “SARFAESI” Action and left the Bank with no option but to commence the process again from the scratch.

For example, a demand notice is to be issued to each of the borrower, co-borrower and guarantor/s in all of their available addresses. It must be sent to them through registered post and acknowledgment from each of the party is required mandatorily. If demand notice is failed to be delivered to any of the above addresses, it must be pasted in the conspicuous place to their addresses. It is mandatory printing it in two leading newspaper one of them should be newspaper of local language. If any of the above step is missed by the Bank, demand notice is deemed to be null and void. No law can revive demand notice in the absence of delivery to each of the parties to the loan.

Thus, compliance and formalities described in the “SARFAESI Act” are to be followed mandatorily. Non-compliance with statutory timelines and procedural framework mentioned in the “SARFAESI Act” as well as “SARFEASI directives” can create delay in recovery proceedings through “SARFAESI”. It may even lead to quashing of “SARFAESI” action already initiated.[4]

Subsequently, after 60 days, commence from the date of delivery of “demand notice”, Bank can proceed for possession of the property. Often, it is observed that borrower denies providing peaceful possession by exercising various tactics of which also includes physical resistance by borrower at the time of taking possession. In such cases, “posting, pasting and publishing” of possession notice is the only recourse for Bank to proof their possession of the property. But such possession is considered as “Symbolic Possession” because the notice only symbolizes possession of Bank but, actual/ physical possession is with the borrower.

For taking physical possession of the property, application with either DM or CJM is required to be filed and on their order physical possession can be taken by the Bank. Although, in the “Act of SARFAESI”, no such word as “Symbolic Possession” and “Physical Possession” is used but only the word “Possession” is present, which creates ambiguity. 

After taking possession of the property, it is mandatory to publish the “possession notice” in two leading newspapers, one in English and one in the language of locality in which the collateral asset is situated, in the span of 7 days subsequent to taking possession. Here, one more ambiguity is observed that from which date the count of 7 days starts, whether it includes the day of taking possession or exclude, is not mentioned in the “Act or Rules of SARFAESI”. Again, any lapse in implementation of “Section 13(4)” at the time of taking possession can lead to cancellation of the notice.

OPERATIONAL & PRACTICAL CHALLENGES IN INITIATING SARFAESI ACTION

“The SARFAESI Act, 2002” has undergone frequent amendments. The existing judicial interpretation is conflicting and contrary. These create ambiguity and make it troublesome for the Banks to proceed with the recourse of security enforcement confidently.[5]

        i.            Cersai Registration- As per amendment done in the “SARFAESI Act, 2002”, registration and noting of charge secured creditor on the secured assets under CERSAI became mandatory and a prior requirement to be completed before initiation of SARFAESI action. If the secured creditor forgets to note his charge and initiate “SARFAESI” Action without it, borrower can take the plea to render such actions to be declared void through court’s intervention. Although, rights of borrower in the secured asset remain valid and enforceable.[6]

      ii.            Borrowers’ Objection- On various occasions it is observed that borrowers resist to repossession of the property no matter it is representative or actual. Such obstruction attracts the issues of law and order. Sometimes the resistance is through power and influence, sometimes it is through legal hurdles, i.e., filing Securitization Application (SA) or Interlocutory Application (IA) in the occasion of pendency of SA in DRT. The recourse of filing Writ Application in High Court and even in Apex Court is also taken by borrowers for obstructing recovery process. Such hurdles result in prolonged litigations and it hampers the efficacy of recovery through “SARFAESI”.[7]

Objection against valuation is another major setback in the recovery process through “SARFAESI”. Borrowers often challenges the valuation amount of their mortgaged assets and bring the Banks under the lenses of scrutiny of judicial authority. This leads to additional litigation and further obstructs the recovery of dues.[8]

    iii.            Iii.Difficulties in the Sale of Secured Assets- It is observed during the study that Banks face tremendous challenges in disposing of the guaranteed property even after acquiring control.  Auction of the collateral is hampered due to market demand, disputes in valuation of the assets and procedural delays in obtaining approvals from the higher authority. Many a times, auction process fail due to non-participation of bidders. It leads to reduction of fair market value and Banks fail to realize the fair market value. Reduction of the value of assets again leads to be disputed by the borrowers. Along with this, borrowers often use their political connection to delay recovery process through “SARFAESI”.[9]

JUDICIARY’S ROLEIN EFFICIENT FUNCTIONINGOF SARFAESI ACT, 2002

“The SARFAESI Act, 2002” was enacted to subside the court interventionpertaining to debt recovery.But, despite of non-judicial approach of the Act, judicial interpretation often required for the smooth implementation of “SARFAESI” Action. It not only balances the rights of creditor & debtor, but also addresses legal ambiguities arise in the process of execution of “SARFAESI” Action.

Along with the purpose of facilitating financial provider in recovering “NPAs” without the interference of court, there are some other major objectives of “SARFAESI Act”, i.e., providing efficient framework of securitization of assets, asset reconstruction and execution of collateral rights, allow lending Institutions to take possession of mortgaged security and sell to recover the loans due by borrowers.The Act primarily evolves around the provision of“13(2)”“demand notice” and the provision of“13(4)”“possession notice” under which secured creditors issue notices to defaulting borrowers and take possession of their mortgaged assets if due remains unpaid even after issuing the notice against borrower. However, many a times these enforcement action taken under “SARFAESI” leads to numerous litigations which mandates judicial intervention.[10]

        i.            Interpretation &Validation of SARFAESI Act: -For providing constitutional validation and interpretationto the provisions of “SARFAESI” and at the meantime justifying the essence of it, judiciaryplays significant role. It is observed in the case of “Mardia Chemicals Ltd. V. Union of India” (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Supreme Court provided a tremendous judgement by validating the “SARFAESI Act, 2002”however concurrently striking down section 17(2) which required borrowers to deposit 75% of their outstanding amount before bringing a complaint to the DRT against measures taken by secured creditors under “SARFAESI Act, 2002”.[11]

      ii.            Harmonizing Creditors’and Debtors’ Right: - Rights of both creditors and debtors are required to be balanced by judiciary. Creditors’ right to recover the dues should not be hampered in order to protect debtors from stringent actions of debt recovery taken by the creditor and vice versa. Judiciary must ensure the parity between creditors and debtors’ right. In the case of “Transcore V. Union of India (2008) 1 SCC 125”, the Court highlighted the fact that mechanism of “SARFAESI” and “DRT” can run simultaneously. Hence, secured creditors can take recourse of “SARFAESI” action even before going to “DRT”. Borrowers may also move to “DRT”in caseof violation of their rights under “SARFAESI”.[12] The Court in the case of “Hindgon Forge (P) Ltd. V. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 2 SCC 198” held that reasonable opportunity to challenge the action under “SARFAESI” must be provide to borrowers.[13]

    iii.            Safeguard Against Banks’ Unfair Practices: -Sometimes it is noticed that genuine persons suffered in the process of “SARFAESI” due to negligent approach of Banks. Judicial intervention secures those genuine borrowers by preventing the misinterpretation of “SARFAESI Act, 2002”. Supreme Court in the case of “Harshad Govardhan Sondagar V. International Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (2014) 6 SCC 1 held” on the condition that tenants are residing in the properties mortgaged to Banks, they are not entitled to be removed from there.[14]Further, in the case of “Indian Bank V. Nippon Enterprises South (2016) 15 SCC 79”, the Court emphasized regarding protection of borrowers and held that while initiating “SARFAESI” action, Bank must adhere to the guidelines of “SARFAESI” and initiate action without violating the rights of the borrowers.[15]

    iv.            Contribution in Rapid Dispute Resolution: -Judiciary helps in resolving the case filed in DRTs, DRATs, High Courts and Supreme Court against action taken under “SARFAESI”. In “Union Bank of India V. Saraswati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110”, the Supreme Court held that except in the matter of infringement of fundamental rights or question of jurisdictional error, High Court should refrain from entertaining matters related to “SARFAESI”. It also reiterated the fact that DRT is the primary forum for disputes relating to “SARFAESI” action taken by secured creditors.[16] Similarly, in the case of “Kaniyalal Lalchand Sachdev V. State of Maharashtra (2011) 2 SCC 782”, the Court held that instead of invoking Writ in High Court, borrowers should take the measure of DRTs and DRATs.[17]

SHORTCOMINGS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SARFAESI ACT, 2002

“The SARFAESI Act, 2002” was established to empower loan recovery structure of Banking & Finance Organization by subsiding the core issue of nationalized Banks, i.e., NPAs. Despite its vast scope, there are significant drawbacks in the execution and functioning of “SARFAESI Act, 2002”.[18]

        i.            Restricted Coverage of the Act: -The major drawback of the “SARFAESI Act” is its limited applicability. The Act does not apply to loans below Rs. 1 Lac, agricultural land and small and medium enterprises lacking substantial security for their loans. Thus, if the loan amount is less than 1 lac, if the agricultural land is mortgaged and if there is loan relating to small & medium enterprises, loan recovery becomes difficult for the Banks.[19]

      ii.            Infringement of Borrowers’ Rights: - Under the “SARFAESI Act”, Banks are empowered to take possession of the property even without the intervention of Court. It gives rise to the possibilities of misusing of powers given to secured creditors. There are various instances where misusing of powers given under “SARFAESI” is observed, i.e., unfair asset seizure, taking possession of properties by Banks.[20] Along with these, it is also observed that in the due course of recovery, Banks use arbitrary and unfair means which often leads to litigation and unnecessary financial distress.[21] The Gujrat High Court in the case of “KeshavlalKhemchand& Sons Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India (2015)” also criticized the Banks for their arbitrary nature of asset seizure.[22]

    iii.            Inefficacy of Debt Recovery Tribunals: -TheDRTs were instituted for swift processing of recovery cases, in truth though, it is overburdened with cases. Borrower, aggrieved by the action taken under “SARFAESI”, challenges the actions of Banks in DRTs. But due to huge pendency in DRTs, adjudication of such cases got delayed.[23]

    iv.            Marginal SuccessInRecovery of NPA:- The central goal of the “SARFAESI Act” was to bring reduction in NPAs. But, according to RBI reports, only a few portion of the NPAs have been successfully recovered. This low rate of triumph of “SARFAESI Act” is the result of delay in recovery proceedings because of many legal loopholes.[24]

      v.            Obstacles in the Restoration of Collateral:-The “SARFAESIAct” also aids to the establishment of Asset Reconstruction Company (ARCs) for taking over of NPAs. However, due to lack of adequate funds and procedural obstruction, often, these ARCs suffers and it results to inefficient recovery.[25]

RECOMMENDATION

To curb the challenges in the initiation of “SARFAESI” action,stringent laws against loan defaulter should be made to protect the Banks from the financial distress. At the same time, arbitrary and unfair means of recovery to be stopped to protect debtor’s interest. These measures include: -

        i.            Simplification of SARFAESI Rules: - Implementation ofSarfaesi action is quite tough due to its minute technicality. From issuing “demand notice” to conducting “auction” the whole process is very procedural and even if one step is missed the whole “SARFAESI” action is bound to be initiated fresh. For example, if the “Demand Notice” is issued to all the parties to the loan but acknowledgment from each of the party is not received, as per Sarfaesi Rules, Paper Publication in two leading newspaper (including one regional language newspaper) is to be done. Suppose, there are 8 parties to the loan and acknowledgement from only one party is not received, it is likely that this step may be forgottento be complied with. To resolve the discrepancies there is no recourse but to initiate the action again from the beginning. This technicality turns the method as huge time taking, hence, diminishing the very essence of the Act. Similar is the situation with “Possession Notice”. If the possession of the secured property is taken by the creditor, paper publication within 7 days is to be done mandatorily. Delay of even one day is bound to reverse the action taken as the action taken becomes null and void. There should be recourse method for validating the previous missed action of Sarfaesiinitiated by the creditor for saving the valuable time of recovery action.

      ii.            Speedy Disposal of Securitization Application Through DRTS And DRATS: - DRT and DRATs are require to dispose of the matter related to Sarfaesi action. It is observed that to do away with Sarfaesi action, borrowers file Securitization application in DRT and being aggrieved with the order of DRT, in DRATs. Till the time of the disposal of the case,Sarfaesi action is stayed by these Tribunals and status quo is asked to be maintained by the Tribunal. Such orders lead to delays and recovery action comes to a standstill. These Tribunals are required to dispose of such matters in priority basis for speedy recovery process.

    iii.            Prohibition OfArbitrary And Unfair Means Used By Recovery Agencies: -It is observed that third party recovery agencies appointed by the creditors use arbitrary and unfair means at the time of initiating Sarfaesi action. For example, creating nuisance at the place of borrower at the time of Sarfaesi notice pasting, misbehaving during possession procedure, giving threats to borrowers for repaying debt. There are RBI guidelines for fair treatmentby these agencies. Along with the guidelines, strict rule should be inserted in the Act itself for better management.

    iv.            Rights of Third Parties Created in The Mortgaged Property: - Specific provisions for those secured assets in which third party interest is already created by the borrower in the absence of the authorization of the lender should be mentioned in the Act. For example, it is observed that borrowers without the consent of the creditor either sale the mortgage property to third parties or give the said property on lease. Because of no mention in the Act regarding the rights of tenants and owners created without taking no objection certificate from secured creditors, it is very difficult for them to recover their dues.

      v.            Rights ofAuction Purchaser: - Specific provisions for the third-party interest created after the sale of secured assets under SARFAESI should be created. For example, rights of the purchaser of the secured assets after the sale under SARFAESI is no where mention in the Act. Often the borrower challenges the auction/sale of their mortgaged property in various Courts & Tribunals. In such cases auction purchaser faces various hardships as the property gets blocked until the disposal of the case. Specific provisions for safeguarding the rights of the auction purchaser should be established.

CONCLUSION

“The SARFAESI Act, 2002”, despite of the diverse challenges, is component of the foremost of debt retrievalframework.Obstruction in the path of recovery through “SAFAESI” Action are many such procedural complexities, operational delays, frequent policy amendments, issue in disposal of secured assets, lack of adequate asset reconstruction funds available in ARCs, overburdened DRTs, legal loopholes etc. But nationalized banks still rely on the Act for securitisation of the secured assets. To mitigate these challenges legal reforms are required to be streamlined in a way to protect the interest of both debtor and creditor.

* Research Scholar of Ph.D., Dpt. of Law, University of Burdwan, West Bengal

[1]SARFAESI Act2002, s 2.

[2]Shruti J Pandey, Vishaka G Tilak and Bipin Deokar, ‘Non-Performing Assets of Indian Banks: Phases and Dimensions’ (2013) 48(24) EPW<https://www.epw.in/journal/2013/24/economic-notes/non-performing-assets-indian-banks.html> accessed 7 February 2025

[3]Ibid.

[4]Kartick Saw ‘Impact and Challenges of the Sarfaesi Act on Asset Recovery and Financial Stability in India’ (2024) 11(12)JETIR<https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2412214.pdf >accessed 7 February 2025

[5]L.Maria Elezeabeth& Ms. T. Vaishali‘An In-Depth Analysis Of the Sarfaesi Act: Historical Context, Legal Challenges, And Recommendations For Reform’ (2025) VI(VI) IJLLR <https://www.ijllr.com/post/an-in-depth-analysis-of-the-sarfaesi-act-historical-context-legal-challenges-and-recommendations> accessed 7 February 2025

[6]Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd v Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax [2022] 142 taxmann.com 99 (HC Bombay)

[7]Emmanuel Soka Joseph &Dr. Sunil Kumar ‘Analysing the Debt Recovery Mechanism in India: A Critical Study of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (2024) 4(4) IJLR <https://ijlr.iledu.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/V4I450.pdf>accessed 7 February 2025

[8]Subhadeep ‘Setting Aside of Auction Sale Under Sarfaesi Act: DRAT Kolkata’ (Dream Law.in, 22 February 2024) <https://dreamlaw.in/setting-aside-of-auction-sale-under-sarfaesi-act-drat-kolkata/> accessed 7 February 2025

[9]Rahul Sundaram ‘E-Auctions Under the Sarfaesi Act: Balancing Procedural Rigidity with Natural Justice’ (India Law, 28 October 2024) <https://www.indialaw.in/blog/civil/e-auctions-sarfaesi-act-justice/> accessed 7 February 2025

[10]Elezeabeth and Vaishali ‘An In-Depth Analysis of the Sarfaesi Act (n 5)

[11]Saw ‘Impact and Challenges of the Sarfaesi Act on Asset Recovery and Financial Stability in India’ (n 4)

[12]Elezeabeth and Vaishali ‘An In-Depth Analysis of the Sarfaesi Act’ (n 5)

[13] Arnav Singh Thakur, ‘Critical Analysis of RDDBFI and Sarfaesi Act’ (2024) 1(III) LUJ<https://lujournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/CRITICAL-ANALYSIS-OF-RDDBFI-AND-SARFAESI-ACT-1.pdf> accessed 7 February 2025

[14]Saw ‘Impact and Challenges of the Sarfaesi Act on Asset Recovery and Financial Stability in India’ (n 4)

[15]Elezeabeth and Vaishali ‘An In-Depth Analysis of the Sarfaesi Act’ (n 5)

[16]Thakur, ‘Critical Analysis of RDDBFI and Sarfaesi Act’ (n 13).

[17]Saw ‘Impact and Challenges of the Sarfaesi Act on Asset Recovery and Financial Stability in India’ (n 4)

[18]Elezeabeth and Vaishali ‘An In-Depth Analysis of the SARFAESI Act (n 5)

[19]Saw ‘Impact and Challenges of the Sarfaesi Act on Asset Recovery and Financial Stability in India’ (n 4)

[20]Sundaram ‘E-Auctions Under the Sarfaesi Act: Balancing Procedural Rigidity with Natural Justice’ (n 9).

[21]Elezeabeth and Vaishali ‘An In-Depth Analysis of the Sarfaesi Act (n 5)

[22]Keshavlal Khemchand and Sons Pvt Ltd v Union of IndiaAIR 2015 SC 1168

[23]Damini M ‘An Evaluation of The Effectiveness of The Remedies Available to Banks And Financial Institutions Under The Sarfaesi Act Of 2002 And The Recovery Of Debt And Bankruptcy Act Of 1993’ (2023) 8(9) IJNRD<https://www.ijnrd.org/papers/IJNRD2309101.pdf> accessed 7 February 2025

[24]Ibid

[25]Ibid