Introduction

The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act of 1956, commonly known as SC(R)A, is one of the oldest financial laws in India. It was made at a time when our country had just become independent and needed proper rules for trading in the stock markets. Before SEBI was born in 1992, this Act was the main law that controlled how stock exchanges worked in India. Even though it is an old law, it remains very important today as it forms the base on which newer laws are built.

The SC(R)A was not always as we see it today. Over the years, especially after SEBI came into existence, the government made many changes to make it work better with SEBI’s rules. These changes helped create a stronger system for regulating the stock markets in India. This article will look at the main parts of the SC(R)A, famous court cases related to it, and how it has changed over time.

Historical Background and Evolution the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act

The SC(R)A was passed in 1956 when stock trading in India was still very basic compared to today. The Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), which started in 1875, was already there but needed proper rules to function well. The main goal of making this law was to stop bad practices in stock trading and make sure that buying and selling of shares was done in a fair way.

For many years, the Central Government directly controlled the stock exchanges through this Act. But after economic reforms started in 1991 and SEBI was given statutory powers in 1992, many responsibilities under SC(R)A were given to SEBI. The Securities Laws (Amendment) Act of 1995 was a big step that transferred most powers from the government to SEBI.

Dr. L.C. Gupta, a famous expert on financial markets, once said: “The SC(R)A of 1956 laid the foundation on which the entire structure of India’s securities market regulation stands today. Without this law, creating an orderly securities market would have been impossible.”

Key Provisions of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956

Recognition of Stock Exchanges (Section 4)

Section 4 of the SC(R)A gives the government (now SEBI) the power to recognize stock exchanges. This section states: “If the Central Government (now SEBI) is satisfied, after making such inquiry as may be necessary in this behalf and after obtaining such further information, if any, as it may require, that it would be in the interest of the trade and also in the public interest to grant recognition to the stock exchange, it may grant recognition to the stock exchange subject to such conditions as may be prescribed or specified.”

This means no stock exchange can operate in India without first getting approval from SEBI. To get this approval, the exchange must follow certain rules about how it works, who can become members, and how trading should be done.

Powers to Control and Regulate Stock Exchanges (Section 5)

Section 5 gives SEBI broad powers to control how stock exchanges function. As per this section, “It shall be the duty of recognised stock exchanges to comply with such directions.” These directions can include changes to the rules of the exchange, how trading should happen, and what information should be given to investors.

For example, SEBI can ask exchanges to change their bye-laws, which are the internal rules of the exchange. These bye-laws cover things like:

• Who can become a broker
• How trades should be settled
• What happens if someone doesn’t complete a trade
• How disputes between members are solved

Regulation of Contracts in Securities (Section 13)

Section 13 is about controlling what kinds of contracts can be made for buying and selling securities. It says that the Central Government (now SEBI) can declare certain types of contracts as illegal or void. This helps prevent gambling-like activities in the stock market.

The actual text of Section 13(1) states: “The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that no person in the notified area shall, save with the permission of the Central Government, enter into any contract for the sale or purchase of any security specified in the notification except in such circumstances and in such manner as may be specified in the notification.”

This section has been very important in controlling derivatives trading in India. For many years, most derivatives were not allowed in Indian markets because of this section, until SEBI gradually introduced stock futures, options, and index derivatives in a controlled way.

Listing Requirements for Securities (Section 21)

Section 21 deals with the requirements for listing securities (like shares or bonds) on stock exchanges. Listing means that a company’s shares can be bought and sold on a stock exchange. This section says that companies must meet certain requirements before their shares can be listed.

The section specifically states: “Where securities are listed on the application of any person in any recognised stock exchange, such person shall comply with the conditions of the listing agreement with that stock exchange.”

This listing agreement has several important requirements, such as:

• Regular sharing of financial information
• Informing the public about major changes in the company
• Following good corporate governance practices
• Treating all shareholders fairly

Delisting of Securities (Section 21A)

Section 21A, which was added later to the original Act, deals with removing securities from stock exchanges. This is called delisting. The section provides for both voluntary delisting (when a company itself wants to remove its shares from trading) and compulsory delisting (when the exchange forces a company to delist because it broke the rules).

The section states: “A recognised stock exchange may delist the securities, after recording the reasons therefor, from any recognised stock exchange on any of the grounds as may be prescribed under this Act.”

Delisting is a serious matter because it means small investors might not be able to easily sell their shares. That’s why the law includes special protections for investors in such cases.

Landmark Court Cases on the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act

Jermyn Capital LLC v. SEBI (2006) SAT Appeal No. 140/2006

This important case was about who can register as a broker in India. Jermyn Capital, a foreign company, applied for registration as a stock broker but was denied by SEBI. When they appealed to the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), the tribunal had to decide on the scope of SEBI’s powers under the SC(R)A for broker registration.

The SAT ruled: “The powers conferred on SEBI under Section 12 of the SEBI Act read with SC(R)A provisions for registration of intermediaries are wide but not unlimited. SEBI must exercise this discretion reasonably and not arbitrarily.”

This case helped define the limits of SEBI’s powers and established that even though SEBI has wide powers, it must use them fairly and provide proper reasons for its decisions.

BSE Brokers Forum v. SEBI (2001) 3 SCC 482

This case went all the way to the Supreme Court and was about SEBI’s power to change the bye-laws of stock exchanges. The BSE Brokers Forum challenged SEBI’s authority to directly amend the bye-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange without the exchange itself making those changes.

The Supreme Court upheld SEBI’s powers and stated: “SEBI has the authority to direct stock exchanges to amend their bye-laws, and if they fail to do so within a reasonable time, SEBI can itself make those amendments. This power is essential for effective regulation of securities markets in public interest.”

This judgment was very important as it confirmed that SEBI has strong powers to control how stock exchanges work, even if the exchanges themselves don’t agree with the changes.

MCX-SX v. SEBI (2012) SAT Appeal No. 47/2012

This was a high-profile case about SEBI’s discretionary powers in recognizing new stock exchanges. MCX-SX, which wanted to expand from being a commodity derivatives exchange to a full-fledged stock exchange, was denied permission by SEBI. They appealed to the SAT.

The SAT overturned SEBI’s decision and ruled: “SEBI’s discretionary powers under Section 4 of SC(R)A for recognizing stock exchanges are not absolute and must be exercised objectively based on criteria laid down in the law. SEBI cannot deny recognition if the applicant meets all the statutory requirements.”

The tribunal also noted: “While SEBI has wide discretionary powers, these powers must be exercised in a transparent and non-arbitrary manner. The regulator must provide clear and valid reasons if it chooses to deny recognition to an applicant that has met all the specified criteria.”

NuPower Renewables v. SEBI (2023) SAT Appeal

This recent case examined disclosure requirements under the SC(R)A and related regulations. NuPower Renewables challenged SEBI’s order regarding inadequate disclosures in a listed company’s filings. The case is significant because it deals with modern corporate governance standards.

The SAT observed: “The disclosure requirements under Section 21 of SC(R)A read with LODR Regulations must be interpreted keeping in mind the objective of ensuring that investors have access to all material information that might affect their investment decisions. Technical compliance alone is not enough if the substance of the disclosure requirements is not met.”

This case shows how the old SC(R)A continues to be relevant in today’s complex corporate environment and works together with newer regulations like the LODR.

Impact of SC(R)A on Market Infrastructure Development

The SC(R)A has played a crucial role in developing India’s market infrastructure. One of the biggest changes it supported was the move from open outcry trading (where brokers shouted and used hand signals on the trading floor) to electronic trading systems.

This transformation happened in the 1990s when the National Stock Exchange (NSE) was established as India’s first electronic stock exchange. The legal framework for this change came from the SC(R)A, which was amended to recognize and regulate electronic trading. This shift made trading more transparent, efficient, and accessible to people across India, not just in big cities where physical exchanges existed.

The Act also provided the legal foundation for many other improvements in market infrastructure:

1. The development of clearing corporations that guarantee trade settlements
2. The introduction of rolling settlement systems instead of account period settlements
3. The establishment of investor protection funds
4. The creation of market-wide circuit breakers to prevent excessive volatility

Integration with SEBI Act and Other Regulations

The SC(R)A doesn’t work alone. It works together with the SEBI Act and many regulations that SEBI has made over the years. For example, the provisions in Section 21 of SC(R)A about listing requirements are now implemented through SEBI’s Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (LODR) Regulations.

Similarly, while SC(R)A Section 13 gives basic powers to regulate contracts in securities, the detailed rules for derivatives trading come from SEBI regulations. This integration ensures that there is a complete regulatory framework covering all aspects of securities markets.

Former SEBI Chairman U.K. Sinha explained this relationship well: “The SC(R)A provides the foundational legal authority, while SEBI regulations provide the operational details. Together, they create a comprehensive regulatory framework for India’s securities markets.”

Challenges and Future Outlook for the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956

Despite its importance, the SC(R)A faces several challenges in today’s rapidly changing financial world:

1. The Act was written in a time when technology was much simpler, so it sometimes struggles to address issues related to algorithmic trading, high-frequency trading, and other technology-driven changes.

2. The global nature of financial markets means that Indian regulations, including the SC(R)A, need to be in line with international standards, which is an ongoing process.

3. New types of assets like digital tokens and cryptocurrencies don’t easily fit into the traditional definitions of “securities” under the SC(R)A.

To address these challenges, experts suggest that while the basic structure of the SC(R)A should be preserved, it needs to be updated regularly to keep up with market developments. The government and SEBI have been doing this through amendments and new regulations.

Conclusion

The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 remains the cornerstone of securities market regulation in India. Even after almost 70 years, its basic principles continue to guide how stock exchanges are recognized and regulated, how securities are listed and traded, and how investor interests are protected.

The Act’s endurance speaks to the wisdom of its drafters, who created a framework flexible enough to adapt to changing times. From the physical trading floors of the 1950s to today’s high-speed electronic markets, the SC(R)A has provided the legal foundation that keeps India’s markets fair, efficient, and trustworthy.

As we look to the future, the The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 will undoubtedly continue to evolve, but its core purpose of ensuring well-regulated, transparent securities markets will remain as important as ever. In the words of former SEBI Chairman C.B. Bhave: “The SC(R)A may be old in years, but its principles are timeless. Well-functioning markets need clear rules, and that’s what this Act provides.”

The post The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act 1956: Foundation of Indian Securities Market Regulation appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The interaction between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has been a subject of significant legal discourse in Indian commercial jurisprudence. The landmark Supreme Court judgment in Haldiram Incorporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. and Others [1] has provided crucial clarity on the intricate relationship between these two pivotal pieces of legislation. This comprehensive analysis examines the legal framework governing secured asset recovery, the implications of concurrent proceedings under both statutes, and the precedential value of this judicial pronouncement in shaping future commercial disputes.

The case, decided on December 6, 2023, by a bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, addresses fundamental questions about the treatment of assets sold under SARFAESI Act provisions when subsequent insolvency proceedings are initiated. The judgment reinforces the principle that properties validly sold through SARFAESI Act auctions before the declaration of moratorium under IBC cannot be retrospectively included in the liquidation estate of the corporate debtor [2].

Historical Context and Legal Framework

Evolution of Asset Recovery Mechanisms

The SARFAESI Act was enacted in 2002 as a response to the mounting non-performing assets (NPAs) in the Indian banking sector. Prior to its enactment, secured creditors faced significant challenges in recovering dues from defaulting borrowers, often requiring lengthy court proceedings that could extend for years. The Act was designed to provide banks and financial institutions with the power to enforce security interests without court intervention, thereby expediting the recovery process [3].

The IBC, introduced in 2016, represented a paradigm shift in India’s insolvency and bankruptcy framework. It consolidated various laws relating to insolvency and bankruptcy into a single comprehensive code, establishing a time-bound process for resolving insolvency cases. The Code prioritizes the revival of distressed companies while ensuring maximum value recovery for all stakeholders [4].

Statutory Provisions Under SARFAESI Act

The SARFAESI Act empowers secured creditors to enforce their security interests through various mechanisms outlined in Section 13 of the Act. Section 13(1) provides that “notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of the court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of this Act” [5].

The enforcement powers under Section 13(4) include:

• Taking possession of the secured assets
• Selling or transferring by way of lease or otherwise the secured assets
• Managing the secured assets including the right to transfer by way of lease or otherwise
• Appointing any person to manage the secured assets [6]

Section 13(2) mandates that before exercising these powers, the secured creditor must serve a notice in writing to the borrower and any person who has created the security interest, calling upon the borrower to discharge in full his liabilities within sixty days from the date of notice [7].

Conditions for SARFAESI Act Application

The Act stipulates specific conditions that must be satisfied before a secured creditor can initiate enforcement proceedings. The borrower’s account must be classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in accordance with the directions or guidelines relating to asset classification issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Additionally, the amount of debt due and payable by the borrower is not less than one lakh rupees or such other amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government [8].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Moratorium Provisions

Scope and Effect of Moratorium

Section 14 of the IBC provides for the declaration of moratorium upon admission of an application for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The moratorium has far-reaching implications as it prohibits the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor, including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority [9].

The moratorium also extends to the transfer of any of the assets of the corporate debtor or any legal right or beneficial interest therein. This provision is crucial in understanding the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Haldiram case, as it establishes the temporal boundary for determining which assets remain within the corporate debtor’s estate [10].

Assets of Corporate Debtor Under IBC

Section 36 of the IBC defines the assets of the corporate debtor that form part of the liquidation estate. These include all assets owned by the corporate debtor on the liquidation commencement date, assets which may be disposed of by the corporate debtor, and assets that may devolve on, or vest in, or be held on trust for the corporate debtor on or after the liquidation commencement date [11].

Case Analysis: Haldiram Incorporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd.

Factual Matrix

The case involved Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd., a corporate debtor whose two blocks of land in Howrah District, West Bengal, were sold in an auction sale under the SARFAESI Act. Haldiram Incorporation Pvt. Ltd. emerged as the successful bidder and was issued a sale certificate by the secured creditor. Subsequently, insolvency proceedings were initiated against Amrit Hatcheries under the IBC, leading to the declaration of a moratorium [12].

The central dispute arose when the liquidator sought to include these auctioned properties in the liquidation estate of Amrit Hatcheries, contending that the sale was not complete at the time of moratorium declaration. This position was challenged by Haldiram Incorporation, which had already received the sale certificate and claimed ownership of the properties.

Legal Arguments and Contentions

The respondents argued that the auction sale under the SARFAESI Act was not complete merely by the issuance of a sale certificate, and that physical possession and registration were necessary for completion of sale. They contended that since these formalities were not completed before the moratorium declaration, the properties remained assets of the corporate debtor [13].

Haldiram Incorporation countered this argument by asserting that the sale was complete upon issuance of the sale certificate, as per the established practice under SARFAESI Act proceedings. They emphasized that the sale certificate itself conferred title to the property, and subsequent formalities were merely procedural requirements that did not affect the validity of the sale [14].

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court examined the timing of the auction sale completion in relation to the moratorium declaration. The Court observed that the critical factor in determining whether properties can be treated as liquidation assets is the completion of the sale process before the declaration of moratorium under the IBC.

The Court held that “the properties of a defaulting borrower sold in an auction sale could not be treated as liquidation assets if the sale was concluded before the declaration of a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code” [15]. This principle establishes a clear temporal test for determining asset ownership in cases where SARFAESI Act proceedings precede IBC moratorium.

Legal Principles Established

Completion of Sale Under SARFAESI Act

The Supreme Court clarified that the handing over of a sale certificate under the SARFAESI Act completes the auction sale process. This determination is significant as it provides certainty to auction purchasers about when their rights become vested and immune from subsequent insolvency proceedings [16].

The judgment establishes that once a sale certificate is issued under SARFAESI Act provisions, the property ceases to be an asset of the corporate debtor for the purposes of IBC proceedings. This principle protects the legitimate expectations of auction purchasers who have complied with SARFAESI Act procedures.

Temporal Precedence Principle

The Court reinforced the principle of temporal precedence, whereby proceedings that are completed under the SARFAESI Act before the declaration of IBC moratorium cannot be undone or challenged in subsequent insolvency proceedings. This principle provides legal certainty and prevents retrospective nullification of validly completed transactions.

Harmonious Construction of SARFAESI Act and IBC

The judgment demonstrates the Court’s approach to harmoniously interpret the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and IBC. Rather than viewing these statutes as conflicting, the Court recognized their complementary roles in the commercial recovery framework while establishing clear boundaries for their respective applications.

Implications for Secured Creditors

Enhanced Security for Auction Purchasers

The judgment provides enhanced security to auction purchasers under SARFAESI Act proceedings. By establishing that sale completion occurs upon issuance of sale certificates, the Court has reduced the uncertainty that previously existed regarding the finality of such transactions. This clarity is expected to encourage greater participation in SARFAESI Act auctions, potentially improving recovery rates for secured creditors.

Strategic Considerations for Recovery Proceedings

Secured creditors must now carefully consider the timing of their recovery actions in relation to potential insolvency proceedings. The judgment incentivizes prompt completion of SARFAESI Act proceedings to ensure that recovered assets are protected from subsequent IBC claims. This may lead to more aggressive pursuit of SARFAESI Act remedies by secured creditors who suspect impending insolvency proceedings.

Impact on Asset Reconstruction Companies

Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs) that acquire stressed assets and pursue recovery through SARFAESI Act mechanisms benefit significantly from this judgment. The clarification regarding sale completion provides ARCs with greater confidence in their acquisition and disposal strategies, knowing that properly completed sales will be protected from subsequent challenges in insolvency proceedings [17].

Implications for Corporate Debtors and Other Stakeholders

Limitation on Asset Availability for Resolution

Corporate debtors undergoing CIRP may find that their asset base for resolution purposes is reduced if significant assets have been sold under SARFAESI Act proceedings before moratorium declaration. This could impact the feasibility of resolution plans and the overall success of the insolvency resolution process.

Effect on Unsecured Creditors

Unsecured creditors may face reduced recovery prospects when valuable assets of the corporate debtor have been sold under SARFAESI Act proceedings before insolvency commencement. The judgment clarifies that such assets cannot be brought back into the liquidation estate for distribution among all creditors, potentially disadvantaging unsecured creditors.

Impact on Resolution Applicants

Resolution applicants need to conduct thorough due diligence regarding assets that may have been disposed of under SARFAESI Act proceedings before submitting their resolution plans. The judgment confirms that such assets will not be available for the resolved entity, affecting valuation and business plan considerations.

Comparative Analysis with International Jurisdictions

United Kingdom Insolvency Framework

In the United Kingdom, the Insolvency Act 1986 provides similar protections for secured creditors, allowing them to enforce their security interests even after insolvency proceedings commence. However, the UK system includes specific provisions for examining transactions that may have been conducted at an undervalue or as preferences, providing courts with powers to reverse such transactions in certain circumstances.

United States Bankruptcy Code

The US Bankruptcy Code under Chapter 11 includes automatic stay provisions similar to the IBC moratorium. However, the US system provides for relief from automatic stay in appropriate circumstances, allowing secured creditors to pursue their remedies under certain conditions. The Indian system, as clarified by the Haldiram judgment, appears more protective of pre-moratorium secured creditor actions.

Regulatory and Policy Considerations

Need for Coordinated Regulatory Framework

The Haldiram judgment highlights the need for better coordination between different regulatory frameworks governing asset recovery and insolvency. While the Court has provided judicial clarity, there remains scope for legislative or regulatory intervention to ensure seamless operation of both regimes.

Balancing Competing Interests

The judgment reflects the Court’s attempt to balance the interests of secured creditors, who require certainty and expeditious recovery mechanisms, against the broader objectives of the IBC in maximizing value for all stakeholders. This balance is crucial for maintaining the effectiveness of both statutory frameworks.

Impact on Credit Markets

The clarity provided by this judgment is likely to have positive implications for credit markets by enhancing the security of recovery mechanisms available to lenders. This could potentially lead to improved credit availability and pricing as lenders gain greater confidence in their ability to recover dues through SARFAESI Act proceedings.

Future Implications and Recommendations

Legislative Considerations

While the Supreme Court has provided judicial clarity on the interaction between SARFAESI Act and IBC, there may be merit in considering legislative amendments to explicitly address timing issues and asset classification in cases of concurrent proceedings. Such amendments could provide additional certainty and reduce litigation.

Best Practices for Stakeholders

Secured creditors should develop robust procedures for expediting SARFAESI Act proceedings and ensuring prompt completion of sales to maximize protection from subsequent insolvency proceedings. Corporate borrowers should be aware that disposal of assets under SARFAESI Act proceedings may limit options available during subsequent financial restructuring.

Role of Courts and Tribunals

The judgment establishes important precedent that should guide National Company Law Tribunals (NCLTs) and Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) in handling similar cases. Consistent application of these principles across different forums will be crucial for maintaining legal certainty.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Haldiram Incorporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. represents a significant milestone in the evolution of Indian commercial law. By providing clear guidance on the interaction between the SARFAESI Act and IBC, the Court has enhanced legal certainty for secured creditors while establishing important principles for asset classification in insolvency proceedings.

The judgment’s emphasis on temporal precedence and completion of sale upon issuance of sale certificates under SARFAESI Act proceedings provides much-needed clarity to the commercial community. This principle protects legitimate expectations of auction purchasers while maintaining the integrity of both statutory frameworks.

The decision also underscores the importance of timing in commercial recovery proceedings and may influence strategic decision-making by secured creditors facing potential borrower insolvency. The enhanced protection afforded to pre-moratorium SARFAESI Act sales is likely to improve confidence in these recovery mechanisms and potentially enhance overall recovery rates in the banking sector [18].

As India’s insolvency and asset recovery framework continues to evolve, this judgment will serve as an important precedent for courts, practitioners, and stakeholders navigating the complex intersection of secured creditor rights and insolvency proceedings. The principles established in this case contribute to the broader objective of creating an efficient and predictable commercial dispute resolution system that supports economic growth and financial stability.

References

[1] Haldiram Incorporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. and Others, Civil Appeal No. 1733 of 2022, Supreme Court of India, decided on December 6, 2023. Available at: https://ibclaw.in/case-name/haldiram-incorporation-pvt-ltd-v-amrit-hatcheries-pvt-ltd-and-ors/ 

[2] LiveLaw. “Supreme Court: Properties Sold In Auction Sale Before Declaration Of Moratorium Can’t Be Treated As Liquidation Asset.” Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/round-ups/weekly/weekly-digest-of-ibc-cases-december-supreme-court-nclat-245281 

[3] The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2006 

[4] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Available at: https://ibbi.gov.in/uploads/legalframwork/2018/Oct/ibc_02112016.pdf 

[5] Section 13(1), SARFAESI Act, 2002. Available at: https://ibclaw.in/section-13-enforcement-of-security-interest/ 

[6] Section 13(4), SARFAESI Act, 2002. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/152603276/ 

[7] Section 13(2), SARFAESI Act, 2002. Available at: https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/overview-sarfaesi-act-2002-note-process-enforcement-security-interest-section-13.html 

[8] Section 13(12), SARFAESI Act, 2002. Available at: https://cleartax.in/s/sarfaesi-act-2002 

[9] Section 14, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Available at: https://ibbi.gov.in/uploads/legalframwork/2018/Oct/ibc_02112016.pdf 

[10] Mukesh Suman. “Haldiram Incorporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd.: The Supreme Court Holds That Handing Over Sale Certificate Completes Auction.” Available at: https://mukeshsuman.com/haldiram-incorporation-pvt-ltd-vs-amrit-hatcheries-pvt-ltd-the-supreme-court-holds-that-handing-over-sale-certificate-completes-auction/ 

[11] Section 36, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Available at: https://ibbi.gov.in/uploads/legalframwork/2018/Oct/ibc_02112016.pdf 

[12] KS&A. “The Properties Sold in Auction Sale Before Declaration of Moratorium Can’t Be Treated as Liquidation Assets.” Available at: https://ksandk.com/newsletter/auctioned-properties-pre-moratorium-not-liquidation-assets/ 

[13] The Daily Guardian. “Supreme Court: IBC – Properties Sold IN Auction Sale Before Declaration Of Moratorium Cannot Be Treated As Liquidation Asset.” Available at: https://thedailyguardian.com/legally-speaking/supreme-court-ibc-properties-sold-in-auction-sale-before-declaration-of-moratorium-cannot-be-treated-as-liquidation-asset/ 

[14] Bhatt & Joshi Associates. “Unraveling the Interplay of SARFAESI Act and IBC: A Study of Haldiram Incorporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.” Available at: https://bhattandjoshiassociates.com/unraveling-the-interplay-of-sarfaesi-act-and-ibc-a-study-of-haldiram-incorporation-pvt-ltd-v-amrit-hatcheries-pvt-ltd-and-ors/ 

[15] 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1029, Haldiram Incorporation Pvt. Ltd. v Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd.

[16] Wikipedia. “Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.” Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securitisation_and_Reconstruction_of_Financial_Assets_and_Enforcement_of_Security_Interest_Act,_2002 

[17] Lexology. “A walk through Sec 13 [8] of the SARFAESI Act…..pre and post amendment.” Available at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b4f967b3-9447-4644-8aa7-cde3394cfeb9 

[18] IBBI. “Official Judgment Document – Haldiram Incorporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd.” Available at: https://ibbi.gov.in/uploads/order/f763b38530133f91c20dfb6f2cfd0e20.pdf 

PDF Links to Full Judgments

• https://bhattandjoshiassociates.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/judgements/Haldiram_Incorporation_Pvt_Ltd_vs_Amrit_Hatcheries_Pvt_Ltd_on_6_December_2023.PDF
• https://bhattandjoshiassociates.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/judgements/the_insolvency_and_bankruptcy_code,_2016 (1).pdfhttps://bhattandjoshiassociates.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/judgements/A2002-54.pdf  

Authorized by  Prapti Bhatt

The post The Intersection of SARFAESI Act and IBC: A Comprehensive Analysis of Haldiram Incorporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. and Others appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.