The DRAT Allahabad quashed a SARFAESI auction, holding that failure to issue proper notice and conduct fair valuation under Rule 8 renders the sale void and the creditor’s possession illegal.

The Supreme Court ruled on 15 September 2025 that a borrower has no vested right to a One Time Settlement and that any claim fails if the mandatory deposit under the scheme is not made.

The Calcutta High Court held that a secured creditor may invoke Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act even after sale, and the District Magistrate’s role is executory, limited to ensuring physical possession, without adjudicatory powers.

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that the District Magistrate’s role under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is purely ministerial, limited to verifying compliance and facilitating possession, without authority to adjudicate disputes.

Allahabad High Court ruled that borrowers have no vested right to extension under OTS; failure to comply within 180 days lapses the settlement, enabling banks to cancel and auction secured assets.

Bank of Baroda has classified the loan accounts of Reliance Communications and Anil Ambani as fraudulent, citing forensic audit findings of irregularities and suspected fund diversion amid ongoing IBC proceedings and regulatory scrutiny.

P&H High Court holds that failure to execute Section 14 SARFAESI orders within the prescribed timeframe attracts contempt as such powers are ministerial.

The Supreme Court Collegium, on 1 September 2025, recommended the appointment of 26 individuals as judges of the Allahabad High Court, including four women and a balanced representation from the Bar and judiciary.

MP High Court ruled that Section 94 IBC cannot be invoked by personal guarantors of sole proprietorship or partnership firms, validating SARFAESI recovery proceedings.

Allahabad High Court ruled that each SARFAESI enforcement step extends limitation by creating a fresh cause of action, with the period computed from the last impugned measure, not the initial notice.