The Supreme Court held that Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act does not override Article 371A of the Constitution, and that SARFAESI enforcement without a valid security interest in Nagaland is without jurisdiction.

The Calcutta High Court clarified that one-time settlements are matters of commercial discretion and do not create enforceable contractual rights in favour of borrowers unless backed by a statutory or binding scheme.

The Bombay High Court held that ownership under SARFAESI transfers only upon issuance of a sale certificate, and an interim moratorium under Section 96 IBC bars completion of an auction sale.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a prior SARFAESI mortgage and auction sale could not be defeated by a subsequent State revenue attachment in the absence of a statutory first charge before Section 26E.

Continuous default beyond ninety days justifies NPA classification, and borrower’s express consent to auction operates as waiver, barring subsequent SARFAESI challenges.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that the DRT and its Recovery Officer cannot impose overseas travel restrictions without statutory authority. Since the 1993 Act contains no provision permitting curtailment of the right to travel abroad, such conditions violate Articles 19 and 21 and are unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court held that security-interest registration under Section 23 gives Section 26E priority over all dues, but provident fund liabilities legally retain first-charge status and must be discharged before allocation of sale proceeds to secured debt.

DRAT Allahabad held that a guarantor who executed the guarantee cannot deny liability without producing contrary evidence.

The outgoing Chief Justice of India disclosed that a retired High Court Chief Justice had attempted to influence a judicial member of the NCLAT in a corporate matter. As the implicated judge retired before a formal inquiry could be commenced, the issue has been placed before the new CJI Surya Kant for administrative action.

The Supreme Court clarified that Chartered Accountants cannot be required to possess 25 years of experience to be eligible for appointment as Technical Members in tribunals, declaring the requirement unconstitutional and extending parity with earlier rulings concerning advocates.