ARC rights to use SARFAESI for debts assigned by non-SARFAESI entities

– Archana Kejriwal

Asset reconstruction companies, formed under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’/‘the Act’) are an important part of the country’s ecosystem to tackle non-performing loans. ARCs buy and resolve non-performing loans by acquiring them from the financial system.

ARCs were traditionally focusing on acquiring large corporate loan exposures. However, recently, there is increasing participation of the ARCs in retail loans. When ARCs buy retail loans, it is quite likely that the lender or the loan does not qualify for SARFAESI right when the loan was with the lender. This may be either because of the nature of the lender (NBFCs having assets of less than Rs 100 crores) or the size of outstanding (less than Rs 20 lakhs). In such cases, once the ARC acquires the loans, will it have the rights under the SARFAESI Act?

The question becomes important, because in case of corporate loans, the advantage that ARCs had over the original lender was one of aggregation, that is, ARCs acquiring loans given to the same borrower by various lenders, and thus getting significant strength in relation to the borrower. This cannot be the case, obviously, with retail loans. Hence, if the acquiring ARC is no better than the outgoing NBFC, in what way does the transfer of the loans help to accelerate the recovery?

In this article, we discuss this important question.

Read more

Display of information on repossession under SARFAESI

– Eliza Bahrainwala, Executive, finserv@vinodkothari.com

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [494.61 KB]

Vehicle financiers must follow SARFAESI process for repossession: Patna High Court

Ruling holds self-help repossession as a breach of the borrower’s fundamental rights of livelihood and dignity

– Vinod Kothari, finserv@vinodkothari.com

Repossession of vehicles (from two-wheelers to four-wheelers), in case of borrowers’ defaults, has been done almost entirely using common law process, on the strength of the provisions of the hypothecation agreement. The roughly Rs 500000 crores auto finance market in India, including financing of passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles, rarely makes use of the process of SARFAESI Act for repossession of vehicles from defaulting borrowers, even though most of the NBFCs and all of the banks are authorised to make use of the process.

However, a recent Patna High Court, from a single judge of the Court[1], holds that since hypothecation is a “security interest” on the vehicle, the use of the process of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory, and any repossession action not adhering to the process of that Act is illegal. The Court has gone to the extent of ordaining all banks and NBFCs in the State to return the repossessed vehicles which are either not sold or are traceable to the borrowers on payment of 30% of the due amount, and in case of those vehicles which are not traceable or returnable, it permits the petitioners to seek compensation. It has simultaneously directed the Police to investigate and register cases of use of force or illegal tactics in repossession.

Read more

Security Interest: Meaning, forms, registration, enforcement, and effects of non-registration

-Team Vinod Kothari and Company | resolution@vinodkothari.com

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [901.29 KB]

National financial information repository: One more or one for all?

– Lovish Jain, Executive | lovish@vinodkothari.com

Some days ago, Mr. Vinod Kothari had commented on a LinkedIn post :

“Do we realise how many places does a lender (NBFC, Bank) register information about a loan? There are 4 credit information companies (such as CIBIL) where the credit data, including performance history, is uploaded. If the exposure is Rs 5 crores or above, in the aggregate over the banking system, information goes on CRILC too.

RBI has recently written to NBFCs reminding them of the obligation to register details with NeSL, an information utility under IBC, irrespective of whether the provisions of Code apply (for example in case of individuals), or whether the lender in question is at all contemplating resorting to IBC as a remedy (for example, consumer loans).

If the loan is a secured loan, the details need to be filed with CERSAI. If the secured loan borrower is a company, details need to be filed with RoC too. If the security interest is on immovable property, one needs to file particulars with land registry. If the security interest is on motor vehicles, the hypothecation is registered with Vahan portal too.

Read more

Registration of Security Interest and Rights of Secured Creditors under IBC

– Sikha Bansal, Partner & Neha Malu, Senior Executive | resolution@vinodkothari.com

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [688.20 KB]

Read our writeups on the topic –

  1. CERSAI beyond SARFAESI – The multi-faceted effects of security interest registration
  2. Fragmented framework for perfection of security interest

CERSAI beyond SARFAESI – The multi-faceted effects of security interest registration

– Sikha Bansal and Anirudh Grover | finserv@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

The rights of secured creditors are spread across various laws: common law, Companies Act, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the SARFAESI Act. In equal measure, the preconditions which are requisite to assert these rights are also spread over those very laws. 

It is lamentable that the security interest registration regime in India is fragmented, without any obvious sense of purpose or direction. This was discussed in our previous article Fragmented Framework for Perfection of Security Interest[1].

Read more

The sale of season: Holding period requirements for assignments and securitisation

– Team Finserv | finserv@vinodkothari.com

Any sale or assignment or transfer, including securitisation, of loans is subject to a minimum seasoning with the originator. Under the extant regulatory provisions, such requirement is referred to as ‘Minimum Holding Period’ (MHP), which means the minimum period for which the originator should have held the loan exposures before the same is transferred to the transferee or Special Purpose Entity (SPE), as the case may be. This serves several purposes: that the loan was not originated for sale, the originator has had some equity in the loans, and that there is a benefit of hindsight of performance.

MHP requirements have always been a part of the regulations in India. However, on December 5, 2022, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) made certain amendments to the Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Transfer of Loan Exposures) Directions, 2021[1] (‘TLE Directions’) as well as the Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Securitisation of Standard Assets) Directions, 2021[2] (‘SSA Directions’). Among the other changes, there was a change in the MHP provisions; this change may have a significant impact on future transactions. 

This write-up intends to clarify the position with respect to the computation of MHP for different types of loans under TLE Directions as well as SSA Directions.

Read more

Memorandum of Entry for equitable mortgages: A Mortgage by Conduct?

– Neha Sinha, Assistant Legal Advisor | Shraddha Shivani, Executive | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Mortgage is a transfer of an interest in a specific immovable property for the purpose of securing the payment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan, an existing or future debt or the performance of an agreement, which may give rise to a pecuniary liability.

Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TP Act”) provides, among other modes, for the creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds, widely known as equitable mortgage.  Applicable to the notified towns under this provision, when a person delivers to a creditor or his agent documents of title deeds to immoveable property, with an intent to create security, then the transaction is called mortgage by deposit of title deeds.

Legally there is no document needed to create an equitable mortgage. In fact, if there is a document, it will be mortgage by instrument and not mortgage by conduct, and hence, will cease to be an equitable mortgage. The Supreme Court expounded in Rachpal Mahraj v. Bhagwandas Daruka and others[1]

“…when the debtor deposits with the creditor the title deeds of his property with intent to create a security, the law implies a contract between the parties to create a mortgage, and no registered instrument is required under section 59 as in other forms of mortgage.

However, in practice, a memorandum accompanies the deposit of title deeds. The lender may execute a Memorandum of Entry (“MoE”) which records the delivery of title documents for the creation of mortgage by the mortgagor to the lender. The purpose of the MoE is most intuitive – the title deeds are valuable documents, and lie with the lender or a trustee for the lender. The MoE serves as a matter of record that the borrower placed these documents of his own free will with the intention to create a charge on his property with the lender/trustee, as also serves as a safeguard if the borrower were to play mischief claiming those very title deeds having been lost.

The borrower may also give an undertaking known as Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed (“MoDT”) which states that the borrower, at his own free will, has deposited his property’s title document with the lender in order to secure a loan by creating a mortgage.

Read more

Tax dues subservient to dues of secured creditors under SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act

Neha Sinha, Executive, Vinod Kothari & Company

corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act are specific laws for recovery of debts.  Both these laws provide that  the secured creditors can claim priority for the realisation of dues. On the other hand, State and Central tax authorities can also enforce the payment of tax dues under tax statutes, which often create a statutory first charge in favour of the authorities. This may give rise to situations wherein the secured creditors are competing with the tax authorities in respect of payment of dues. Such competing claims have to be resolved in case of insolvency/deficiency.

A similar situation arose in the case of Jalgaon Janta Sahakari v. Joint Commissioner of Sales.[1] The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court decided on the issue of the conflict between  SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act, and State tax statutes, in respect of priority of claims. The primary that arose in this case was whether State tax authorities can claim priority, by virtue of first charge created under State tax statutes, over a secured creditor for liquidation of their respective dues.

Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI deals with registration of charges by secured creditors and. Pursuant to section 26D therein,  a secured creditor who has not registered the charge loses his right to enforce the security under SARFAESI. Section 26E, which has a non-obstante clause, accords priority to the secured creditor who has registered the charge in the CERSAI, over “all other debts and all revenue, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central Government or State Government or local authority.” Similarly, section 31B of the RDDB Act gives states that “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law….rights of secured creditors shall have priority and shall be paid in priority over all other debts and Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central Government, State Government or local authority.” Pertinently, the aforesaid provisions in both Acts have a non-obstante clause, having the effect of overriding any other law inconsistent with it.

In the instant case, by virtue of relevant State tax statutes, a first charge was created in favour of State tax authorities. This brings forth the conflict as to who shall have priority in terms of payment-  that State tax authorities with first charge or the secured creditors with the registration of charge in CERSAI?

Read more