Bombay High Court
Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited vs Axis Bank Ltd on 6 May, 2026
2026:BHC-OS:11686
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 95 OF 2026
Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited ...Applicant
V/s.
Axis Bank Limited & Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Ms. Megha Gupta with Ms. Pranjali Khemnar and Ms. Lavanita Chityala
i/b. Hedgehog & Fox LLP, for the Applicant.
Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rushil Mathur, Ms.
Alessandra Shroff and Ms. Amrita Natarajan i.b. Mr. Mayur Shetty c/o.
Kochhar & Co., for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Mayank Tripathi, for Respondent Nos.2 to 5.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
RESERVED ON: 23 APRIL 2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 06 MAY 2026
JUDGMENT:
1) This is a Petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) raising an issue of seminal
importance about permissibility to conduct arbitration under Section 11
of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Page No.1 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:24 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) between a
secured creditor (Axis Bank) and an entity (Applicant), who is
prevented from becoming a secured creditor in respect of the property of
the same borrowers. The case involves takeover of loan by the Applicant-
Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd. (Aditya Birla) from Axis Bank.
Towards the transaction of loan transfer, Aditya Birla credited the
intimated outstanding amount in the loan account with Axis Bank.
However due to some delay in such credit, an insignificant amount
remained outstanding in the loan account with Axis Bank, resulting in
non-closure of the loan account and on that ground, Axis Bank has
refused to terminate its security interest over mortgaged properties by
handing over title documents to the Applicant. Because of refusal to
handover the title documents by Axis Bank, Applicant is yet to become a
secured creditor whereas Axis Bank is already a secured creditor in
respect of the same property of the same borrowers. Whether in such
circumstances arbitration under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act can be
conducted between the Applicant and Respondent No.1-Bank is an issue
that arises for consideration in the present Application. The Applicant
seeks contractual arbitration against the borrowers in pursuance of
arbitration clause in the loan agreement and statutory arbitration
against Axis Bank under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act.
FACTS
2) Applicant-Aditya Birla is an incorporated entity engaged in
the business inter alia of housing finance. Respondent No.1-Axis Bank is
a banking company doing business under Banking Regulation Act, 1949.
Respondent No.2 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act,
Page No.2 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:24 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
1956 and Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are its directors. Respondent Nos.2 to 5
are collectively referred to as the ‘borrowers’.
3) The borrowers had availed cash credit and overdraft
facilities from Axis Bank for business purposes. The borrowers
approached the Applicant on 17 July 2023 seeking credit facilities of
Rs.4,70,05,000/- inter alia for the purpose of taking over the cash credit
and overdraft facilities sanctioned by Axis Bank. The borrowers
submitted copies of foreclosure letter and statement of accounts issued
by Axis Bank in respect of the cash credit account and overdraft facilities.
Applicant sanctioned loan of Rs.4,70,05,000/- to the borrowers.
According to the Applicant, the loan is sanctioned against mortgage of
property bearing Plot No. 25, Survey No.20, Dwarka Service Centre,
Marble Market, South West Delhi, Delhi owned by Surendra Kumar
Agarwal (Respondent No.3). It appears that security interest in respect of
the subject property was already created in favour of Axis Bank to secure
the credit facilities disbursed by it. On 4 September 2023, the Applicant
and the borrower entered into loan agreement which contains clause
No.10 for arbitration. The borrowers also executed irrevocable Power of
Attorney in favour of the Applicant on 12 September 2023 which
empowered the Applicant to step into the shoes of Respondent No.2 and
the borrowers inter alia for collecting the title documents of the subject
property from Axis Bank and to deal with Axis Bank for the performance
of various acts necessary for loan takeover.
4) By letter dated 4 September 2023, the borrowers requested
the Applicant to disburse Rs.1,13,30,147/- in the loan account with Axis
Page No.3 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:24 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
Bank for closure of cash credit and overdraft facilities. Accordingly, the
Applicant disbursed amounts of Rs.17,05,144/- in cash credit (CC) loan
account and Rs.96,25,003/- in Overdraft (OD) loan account of Axis Bank.
Respondent No.5 submitted request to the Axis Bank for debit freeze on
overdraft facility on 13 September 2023 and such debit freeze was
implemented by Axis Bank. According to the Applicant, Axis Bank
refused to handover title deeds in respect of the subject property to the
Applicant though the amount due under the CC and OD facility was paid
by the Applicant to the Axis Bank. On 10 January 2024, the Applicant
issued letter to Axis Bank for handing over title deeds/documents of
subject property. Applicant visited the office of Axis Bank for securing
the title documents of the subject property. On 8 February 2024, the
borrowers’ accounts with Applicant were classified as Non-Performing
Assets (NPA) as per the RBI Guidelines. Without Applicant’s knowledge,
the borrowers addressed request letter to Axis Bank on 26 February 2024
seeking to lift the debit freeze on the OD Account. Axis Bank lifted the
debit freeze marked in the account of the borrowers on 7 March 2024 and
the borrowers started drawing amounts from OD Account. On 19 June
2024, the Applicant addressed legal notice to Axis Bank requesting to
handover the title documents. Axis Bank addressed reply dated 15 July
2024 refusing to handover title documents and communicated that an
amount of Rs.88,90,126/- remained overdue in the OD Account.
Applicant issued letter dated 27 August 2024 to the Axis Bank once again
requesting for handing over the title documents.
5) In the above background, the Applicant filed Petition under
Section 9 of the Arbitration Act bearing Commercial Arbitration Petition
Page No.4 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:24 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
No. 104 of 2025 seeking interim measures in which an interim order was
passed directing deposit of the title-deeds by Respondent No.1-Bank in
the Registry of this Court. By notice dated 4 December 2025, the
Applicant invoked arbitration clause under Section 21 of the Arbitration
Act. By reply dated 4 December 2025, Respondent No.3 denied existence,
validity or enforceability of the loan agreement.
6) By judgment and order dated 19 January 2026, this Court
decided Commercial Arbitration Petition No.104 of 2025 and directed
that the title deeds pertaining to the subject property shall remain
deposited with this Court during pendency of the arbitral proceedings.
The issue of arbitrability of disputes between the Applicant and
Respondent No.1-Bank was however left open to be decided in
appropriate proceedings.
7) Respondent No.1 thereafter replied to the notice issued
under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act on 19 January 2026 denying any
contractual relationship and existence of any arbitration agreement. The
Applicant has accordingly filed the present Application under Section 11
of the Arbitration Act.
SUBMISSIONS
8) Ms. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant
submits that the credit facility has been granted by the Applicant to the
borrowers under express representation that a charge of the Applicant
would be created in respect of the subject property after release of
Page No.5 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:24 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
charge of Axis Bank after utilising credit facilities granted by the
Applicant for repayment of outstanding dues of Axis Bank. That the
outstanding dues were directly transferred to Axis Bank. That Axis Bank
was always aware of nature of transaction and the fact that the case
involves loan handover. That the debit freeze was illegally and
erroneously lifted by Axis Bank by acting in collusion with the borrowers.
That the borrowers have taken undue advantage of time gap between
issuance of foreclosure statement and actual disbursal resulting in
shortage of amount of Rs.239,936.29/-. That revival of Overdraft account
Axis bank on 7 March 2024 is deliberate and intentional. That Axis Bank
has acted with mala fide intentions by permitting the borrowers to draw
the amounts from OD facility despite being fully aware that the case
involved loan transfer to the Applicant.
9) Ms. Gupta further submits that the case thus involves
dispute over securitisation between a financial institution and a bank,
thereby clearly attracting the provisions of SARFAESI Act. That the
scheme of SARFAESI Act does not restrict itself to a secured creditor but
covers all parties viz. the banks, financial institutions and asset
reconstruction companies (ARCs) or qualified buyer. That there is
mandate to settle the disputes between a bank and a financial institution
by arbitration or conciliation as provided in the Arbitration Act on
account of use of the word “shall” in Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act. She
takes me through definition of the term ‘security interest’ under Section
2(1)(zf)(i) of SARFAESI Act in support of her contention that even a
charge can be treated as security interest. She relies on definition of the
term ‘charge’ in Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and
Page No.6 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:24 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
submits that the Applicant has charge over the subject property by virtue
of sanction letter, loan agreement and irrevocable Power of Attorney
executed by the borrowers.
10) Ms. Gupta Further submits that the present case concerns
internal creditor dispute between the banks/financial institutions which
have created a charge over the subject property by virtue of
pledge/hypothecation. That by virtue of Section 31 of the SARFAESI Act,
even though the provisions of the Act may not apply for enforcement of
such security, the disputes of the nature can be referred to arbitration
under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act which provides for statutory
arbitration. She relies on judgment of Calcutta High Court in Reliance
Commercial Finance Limited vs. Axis Bank Limited1.
11) Ms. Gupta further submits that the judgment of the Apex
Court in Bank of India vs. Sri Nangli Rice Mills Private Limited 2 holds
that once one of the two conditions of (i) dispute between the bank and
financial institution and (ii) dispute relating to securitisation or non-
payment of an amount due inclusive of interest, are satisfied, the Debt
Recovery Tribunal would have no jurisdiction and proper recourse would
be only through Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act read with Arbitration
Act. She further submits that the judgment in Bank of India vs. Shri
Nangli Rice Mills (supra) is delivered in the context of controversy
involving entertaining of claims of rights over stock of goods over
hypothecation of pledge and the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that
1
2021 SCC OnLine Cal 4372
2
(2025) 9 SCC 225
Page No.7 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:24 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
disputes fall within the scope of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act. That
the Apex Court has rejected the contention that charge created by a
pledge falls outside the ambit of SARFAESI Act. That the judgement
cannot be cited in support of a proposition that a bank or financial
institution must be a secured creditor for invoking the provisions of
Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act.
12) Ms. Gupta concludes by submitting that the case involves
internal credit disputes between a financial institution and a bank falling
within the ambit of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act. That Axis Bank is
illegally withholding the title deeds which were already brought in the
registry of this Court in Section 9 proceedings. That the arbitral tribunal
would decide whether the Applicant is entitled to retain the title deeds
to secure its outstanding amounts. She would therefore pray for
appointment of an arbitrator even for settlement of the disputes between
the Applicant and Axis Bank. In so far as borrowers (Respondent Nos.2 to
5) are concerned, she submits that the Loan Agreement undoubtedly
provides for settlement of disputes through arbitration. She therefore
submits that an arbitrator be appointed to settle the disputes between
the Applicant and all the Respondents.
13) Mr. Ardeshir, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Axis
Bank opposes the Application submitting that the Applicant has adopted
inconsistent and contradictory stands in the present Application as
compared to Section 9 Petition. That the Applicant treated Axis Bank as
a third party to arbitration in Section 9 Petition and expressly stated that
it intended to invoke arbitration only against the borrowers and was
Page No.8 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:24 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
merely securing interim relief against Axis Bank. That entire Section 9
petition was premised on an admission that there was no arbitration
agreement, contractually or statutory, qua Axis Bank and that the
Applicant was desirous of invoking arbitration only against the
borrowers. That therefore, seeking of a reference under Section 11 of the
SARFAESI Act against Axis Bank is clearly an afterthought.
14) Mr. Ardeshir further submits that Section 11 of the
SARFAESI Act has no application to the present case as Applicant is
admittedly not a secured creditor. He further submits that an unsecured
creditor can never invoke any of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act,
including Section 11. That the provisions of SARFAESI Act can only be
invoked by a secured creditor. He takes me through the Statement of
Objects and Reasons of SARFAESI Act in support of his contention that
the Act is promulgated to regularise securitisation and reconstruction of
financial assets and enforcement of security interest by a secured
creditor. That the Act is enacted to enable the secured creditors to
secure possession of and sell the secured assets without the intervention
of the Court / Tribunal. That the entire mechanism of SARFAESI Act is
dependent on the fact that the bank or financial institution is a secure
creditor. That a condition precedent to invoke any provision of SARFAESI
Act is that the party invoking any provision of the Act is a secured
creditor. That if the initial condition is not met, the bank or financial
institution can never invoke provisions of the Act.
15) Mr. Ardeshir relies on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (NEDFI)
Page No.9 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:24 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
vs. L. Doulo Builders and Suppliers Co.P. Ltd. 3 in support of his
contention that the provisions of SARFAESI Act can be invoked only
where a security interest has been created in favour of a secured creditor.
That unsecured creditor cannot invoke provisions of SARFAESI Act.
16) Mr. Ardeshir further submits that Section 11 of the
SARFAESI Act is limited to disputes inter se between secured creditors
and relies upon judgment of the Apex Court in Bank of India vs. Shri
Nangli Rice Mills. He submits that the statutory arbitration
contemplated under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act is confined only to
disputes between the secured creditors and more particularly in relation
to priority of claims and enforcement of security interest. That therefore,
even if provisions of SARFAESI Act were to apply to the Applicant,
Section 11 thereof becomes applicable only when both the parties to the
dispute are secured creditors and the dispute pertains to propriety and
enforcement of security interests.
17) Mr. Ardeshir further submits that the Applicant has no
enforceable claim against Respondent No.1, which is capable of being
referred to arbitration. The grievance of the Applicant arises solely from
independent contractual arrangement with the borrowers through
arbitral proceedings. The Applicant cannot seek to elevate itself to the
status of secured creditor. Since arbitrator can only decide disputes
relating to propriety and entitlement between the secured creditors inter
se, no purpose would be served by referring the alleged disputes between
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2819
Page No.10 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:24 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
the Applicant and Respondent No.1 to arbitration. Mr. Ardeshir would
pray for dismissal of the Application.
18) Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
Nos. 2 to 5 (borrowers) has also opposed the Application. He has sought
to raise various issues touching upon merits of the case. Additionally, he
has also questioned the right of the Applicant to have mortgage in
respect of the subject property. That no mortgage is created in favour of
Applicant. He prays for dismissal of the Application
REASONS AND ANALYSIS
19) The case involves a peculiar circumstance where in a
transaction of loan takeover, a miniscule amount of Rs. 2,36,936.29/-
remained outstanding in the loan account of the borrowers with Axis
Bank despite repayment of outstanding amounts of Rs.17,05,144/- and
Rs.96,25,003/- by the Applicant directly into the loan accounts of the
borrowers with Axis Bank. The outstanding loan amount with Axis Bank
was only about Rs.1,13,30,147/- whereas the borrowers wanted more
loan and had approached the Applicant. The Applicant accordingly
sanctioned credit facilities to the tune of Rs. 4,70,00,000/- to the
borrowers subject to creation of mortgage on the subject property.
However since the borrowers had already mortgaged the subject property
with the Axis Bank, it was decided to directly repay the outstanding loan
amount to Axis Bank for release of its charge over the subject property,
so that the Applicant’s security interests could be created thereon. With
this intention, the borrowers submitted foreclosure statement issued by
Page No.11 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:24 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
Axis Bank and accordingly total amount of Rs.1,13,30,147/- was
transferred by the Applicant in the loan accounts of the Axis Bank.
However, there was some time gap between the date of issuance of
account statement by Axis Bank (28 August 2023) and actual disbursal in
the Loan account occurring on 13 September 2023 resulting in debit of
interest and reflecting of outstanding amount of Rs.2,36,936.29/- in the
OD Account of the borrowers with Axis Bank. Simultaneously with
disbursal of loan amount directly in the account of borrowers with Axis
Bank, Applicant requested Axis Bank to put debit freeze in the OD
Account and such debit freeze was implemented. Axis Bank was fully
aware of the nature of transaction of loan transfer and ideally it ought to
have requested the Applicant to transfer the amount of Rs.2,36,936.29
remaining outstanding since Applicant wanted to have its mortgage
created on the same property.
20) However, the borrowers apparently took disadvantage of the
situation and requested for lifting of debit freeze and started drawing
amounts from the OD Account. According to the Applicant, there is
collusion between the borrowers and Axis Bank officials, which enabled
the borrowers to secure further credit facilities from Axis Bank even
though they had agreed to transfer Axis Bank Loan Account to the
Applicant. It is not necessary to delve further into the merits of the case
as the same have been prima facie dealt with while deciding Section 9
Petition.
21) The short controversy raised in the present Application is
whether there can be arbitration between the Applicant and Respondent
Page No.12 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
No.1-Bank. So far as the disputes between the Applicant and
Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are concerned, there is no dispute about existence
of arbitration clause in the Loan Agreement. Clause-10 of the Loan
Agreement provides thus:
10. GOVERNING LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
10.1 Laws of India shall govern this Agreement, the security and other
documentation pursuant hereto. The Courts in the City of Mumbai (unless
specified otherwise in this agreement) will have exclusive jurisdiction over all
aspects governing the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement.
10.2 The Parties also agree and acknowledge that in case of any dispute or
difference arising out of or in connection with this Agreement whether during its
subsistence or thereafter between the parties including any dispute or difference
relating to the interpretation of the Agreement or any clause thereof shall be
settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of The Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, or any statutory modifications thereof and shall be referred
to a sole arbitrator, to be appointed by ABHFL alone.
10.3 The venue for conducting arbitration proceedings shall be conducted at the
place mentioned Schedule – 1 and the language of arbitration shall be in English.
…
SCHEDULE-I
22 Place of Arbitration Mumbai
22) Thus, there is not much dispute about the conduct of
arbitration between the Applicant and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The main
opposition to the arbitration is by Axis Bank. It is submitted that there is
no privity of contract between the Applicant and Axis Bank and that
therefore, there is no question of arbitration. It is also Axis Bank’s
contention that Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be applied to the
present case since the Applicant is not a secured creditor.
Page No.13 of 41 6 May 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:04:25 ::: Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026 23) Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act provides for compulsory
arbitration between banks, financial institutions, asset reconstruction
companies and qualified buyers, where a dispute arises relating to
securitisation or reconstruction or non-payment of any amount due
including interest amongst them. Such a dispute is required to be settled
by conciliation or arbitration as provided in the Arbitration Act
irrespective of whether the parties have consented in writing for
adjudication of such disputes through arbitration. Section 11 of the
SARFAESI Act provides thus:
11. Resolution of disputes.–
Where any dispute relating to securitisation or reconstruction or non-payment
of any amount due including interest arises amongst any of the parties,
namely, the bank or financial institution or asset reconstruction company or
qualified buyer, such dispute shall be settled by conciliation or arbitration as
provided in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), as if the
parties to the dispute have consented in writing for determination of such
dispute by conciliation or arbitration and the provisions of that Act shall apply
accordingly.
24) There is no dispute to the position that the Applicant is
covered by the expression ‘financial institution’. However, mere status of
parties as bank/financial institution/ARC/qualified buyer is not sufficient
and it must further be demonstrated that the dispute pertains to
securitisation or reconstruction or non-payment of any amount due
between such entities.
25) Mr. Ardeshir has contended that the provisions of SARFAESI
Act are intended to apply only to secured creditors and that an
unsecured creditor is not entitled to invoke any of the provisions of the
SARFAESI Act including the provisions of Section 11 thereof. He takes
Page No.14 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
me through the Statement of Objects and Reasons in support of his
contention that the Act has been enacted only with the objective of
regulating securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and
enforcement of security interests by a secured creditor. It is contended
that the Act is brought in to enable secured creditor to take possession of
and sell secured assets without the intervention of the Court/Tribunal.
The Statement of Object and Reasons of SARFAESI Act are as under:
Statement of Objects and Reasons.-
The financial sector has been one of the key drivers in India’s efforts to achieve
success in rapidly developing its economy. While the banking industry in India
is progressively complying with the international prudential norms and
accounting practices there are certain areas in which the banking and financial
sector do not have a level playing field as compared to other participants in the
financial markets in the world. There is no legal provision for facilitating
securitisation of financial assets of banks and financial institutions. Further,
unlike international banks, the banks and financial institutions in India do not
have power to take possession of securities and sell them. Our existing legal
framework relating to commercial transactions has not kept pace with the
changing commercial practices and financial sector reforms. This has resulted
in slow pace of recovery of defaulting loans and mounting levels of non-
performing assets of banks and financial institutions. Narasimham Committee
I and II and Andhyarujina Committee constituted by the Central Government
for the purpose of examining banking sector reforms have considered the need
for changes in the legal system in respect of these areas. These Committees,
inter alia, have suggested enactment of a new legislation for securitisation and
empowering banks and financial institutions to take possession of the
securities and to sell them without the intervention of the court. Acting on
these suggestions, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Ordinance, 2002 was promulgated on 21-
6-2002 to regulate securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and
enforcement of security interest and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto. The provisions of the Ordinance would enable banks and
financial institutions to realise long-term assets, manage problem of liquidity,
asset liability mismatches and improve recovery by exercising powers to take
possession of securities, sell them and reduce non-performing assets by
adopting measures for recovery or reconstruction.
Page No.15 of 41 6 May 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:04:25 ::: Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026 26) No doubt, the objective behind enacting SARFAESI Act is to
provide a swifter remedy for banks or financial institutions to take
possession of secured assets without the intervention of courts. However
the Act also seeks to create a separate dispute resolution mechanism for
banks, financial institutions, etc when disputes arise between them
relating to securitisation, reconstruction or non-payment of any amount.
Whether that dispute resolution mechanism envisaged under Section 11
of the SARFAESI Act is restricted only for banks or financial institutions
who are secured creditors? Whether every dispute relating to
securitisation, reconstruction or non-payment of any amount between
banks and financial institutions can be resolved under Section 11 of the
Act or the banks or financial institutions must also possess the status
and capacity as secured creditors for availing the said dispute resolution
mechanism? Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act by itself does not use the
expression ‘secured creditor’. Therefore plain language of Section 11
does not require that the bank or financial institution must also possess
the status that of a secured creditor.
27) The Applicant has relied on the provisions of Section 11 of
the SARFAESI Act for seeking arbitration reference in respect of disputes
between it and Axis Bank. The provisions of Section 11 of the SARFAESI
Act make it clear that the two conditions need to be satisfied for
application of the said provision viz. (i) the dispute must arise between
the bank, financial institution, asset reconstruction company or a
qualified buyer and (ii) the disputes must relate to securitisation of
financial assets, reconstruction of assets or non-payment of any amount
Page No.16 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
due with interests. In Bank of India vs. Sri Nangli Rice Mills, the Apex
Court has explained this in paras-68, 68.1 and 68.2 as under:
68. From the plain language of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act, it is manifest
that the scope and ambit of the said provision have been limited or confined by
the twin conditions laid therein, that have to be satisfied in order to attract the
said provision being as under:
68.1 Where the dispute arises between:
(a) any bank;
(b) any financial institution;
(c) any asset reconstruction company;
(d) any qualified buyer; and
68.2 Where the dispute relates to:
(a) securitisation of financial assets;
(b) reconstruction of assets;
(c) non-payment of any amount due and/or interest
28) There is no dispute to the position that the Applicant fulfils
the first condition of the dispute arising between a bank and financial
institution. The contest is really with regard to the second condition
about the dispute relating to securitisation / reconstruction / non-
payment. According to Axis Bank, the provisions of the SARFAESI Act
apply only to secured creditors and that both, the bank and financial
institution must be secured creditors for application of provisions of
Section 11 of the Act. It is contended on behalf of Respondent No.1 that
since security interest is not created in respect of the subject property in
favour of the Applicant, it does not fit into the term ‘secured creditor’ and
that therefore, it is not entitled to invoke any of the provisions of the
SARFAESI Act and that therefore, the question of application of
provisions of Section 11 of SARFAESI Act simply does not arise. Reliance
Page No.17 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
is placed by Respondent-Axis Bank on judgment of the Apex Court in
North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (NEDFI) (supra)
in which the Apex Court has considered the question as to whether the
provisions of SARFAESI Act could be invoked by the Appellant-
Corporation against the respondent-company by issuance of notice
under Section 13(2). In case before the Apex Court, the Appellant-
Corporation agreed to offer financial assistance, and to secure the loan,
couple of agreements were executed by executing a deed of guarantee. It
appears that there was prohibition in the State of Nagaland for transfer
for property by a tribal in favour of non-tribal including a juristic person.
Therefore, a village council had made an arrangement for enabling the
villagers to secure loan facilities from financial institutions and an
agreement was executed between the village council and director of
respondent-company under which the village council permitted the
corporation to dispose of the mortgaged assets for realisation of loan
with interest. The village council also executed guarantee for repayment
of loan by the respondent-company. When the respondent-company
failed to repay the loan amount, the appellant-corporation invoked the
provisions of the SARFAESI Act and secured an order under Section 14
from the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur empowering the Sub-
Divisional Officer to oversee the process of taking over physical
possession of assets. It is in the light of this factual background, the
issue that arose for consideration is captured in para-15 of the judgment
as under:
15. A couple of questions could arise for our determination. However, the first
question that we are tasked to decide is whether provisions of thePage No.18 of 41
6 May 2026::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, could at all have been invoked by the Corporation against
the company by issuing the notice dated June 30, 2011 under section 13(2)
thereof, seeking to recover of Rs. 7,64,35,358. Should the answer be in the
negative, that would mark the end of the lis at least at the stage the same has
reached.
29) In North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd.
(NEDFI) the Apex Court has answered the question holding that for
invocation of provisions of the SARFAESI Act, creation of mortgage is
must and that no security interest in respect of the property was created
in favour of the Corporation within the meaning of the Act and the
Corporation therefore was not a secured creditor. The Apex Court has
held that the Loan Agreement was executed before coming into effect of
the SARFAESI Act. The Apex Court accordingly held in paras-27, 28, 32
and 33 of the judgment as under:
27. It is also evident from the deed of guarantee dated May 11, 2001 that the
council did guarantee that in case the company failed or neglected to repay the
loan with interest to the Corporation in accordance with the terms of the loan
agreement dated May 11, 2001, the council shall repay to the Corporation such
amounts as they may be called upon to pay. In view of such deed of guarantee,
the Corporation lacked the authority to invoke the Securitisation and Recon-
struction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, against
the company. If at all, the sole option available to the Corporation was to pro-
ceed against the council in a manner known to law.
28. It is reasonable to presume that the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, not being in exis-
tence on May 11, 2001, a secured creditor might not have thought of creation
of any security interest in the secured asset including creation of mortgage by
deposit of title deeds in terms of a security agreement to enforce a secured
debt. Indeed, the terms “secured creditor”, “secured interest”, “secured debt”,
“security agreement”, etc., all together, are to be found only in the Securitisa-
tion and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Inter-
est Act, and not in any previous enactment. The Division Bench has held in no
unmistakable terms that no property was mortgaged by the company in favour
of the Corporation. This is an undisputed fact. It is, therefore, abundantly clear
Page No.19 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
that the Division Bench of the High Court was clearly right in interdicting the
actions of the Corporation and in allowing the writ petition filed by the com-
pany by returning a finding that the action of the Corporation was without ju-
risdiction.
32. What follows from the above is that there has to be creation of a security
interest. Security interest is defined in section 2(1)(zf) as follows:
“(zf) ‘s ecurity interest’ means right, title or interest of any kind, other
than those specified in section 31, upon property created in favour of any
secured creditor and includes–
(i) any mortgage, charge, hypothecation, assignment or any right,
title or interest of any kind, on tangible asset, retained by the secured
creditor as an owner of the property, given on hire or financial lease or
conditional sale or under any other contract which secures the obliga-
tion to pay any unpaid portion of the purchase price of the asset or an
obligation incurred or credit provided to enable the borrower to acquire
the tangible asset; or
(ii) such right, title or interest in any intangible asset or assignment
or licence of such intangible asset which secures the obligation to pay
any unpaid portion of the purchase price of the intangible asset or the
obligation incurred or any credit provided to enable the borrower to ac-
quire the intangible asset or licence of intangible asset; ”
33. We reiterate, no security interest in respect of any property (secured asset)
was created in favour of the Corporation within the meaning of the Securitisa-
tion and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Inter-
est Act, and, therefore, the Corporation is not a secured creditor. The law laid
down in M.D. Frozen Foods Exports P. Ltd. v. Hero Fincorp Ltd. [2017 SCC OnLine
SC 1211.] has to be read in the light of the facts present in the appeal before
this court and the issues that arose for consideration.
30) In my view, the judgment in North Eastern Development
Finance Corporation Ltd. (NEDFI) provides limited assistance for
deciding the issue at hand. The judgment is an authority on the issue as
to whether the provisions of SARFAESI Act can be invoked for realisation
of outstanding loan amount in absence of a valid mortgage. In the
present case, Applicant is not seeking to take measures under Section 13
or 14 of the SARFAESI Act against the borrowers. The issue here is
entirely different. The judgment therefore provides no assistance on the
Page No.20 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
issue of permissibility to make a reference to arbitration for adjudication
of disputes between a financial institution which is yet to achieve status
of a secured creditor and a bank, which is already a secured creditor.
31) The judgment of the Apex Court in Bank of India vs. Sri
Nangli Rice Mills (supra) is close to the controversy at hand. It deals
inter alia with the issue of scope of provisions of Section 11 of the
SARFAESI Act. The case before the Apex Court involved borrower
availing credit facilities from appellant-bank by hypothecating stocks of
paddy and other assets. The borrower availed one more credit facility
from respondent-bank during currency of loan disbursed by the
appellant-bank. The borrower executed pledge agreement with the
respondent-bank by which warehouse receipts of certain goods including
stocks of paddy and rice were pledged in favour of the respondent-bank.
Since the borrower defaulted in payment of loan amount, the appellant-
bank issued demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and
proceeded to take symbolic possession of the factory premises, plant and
machinery alongwith stocks of rice and paddy which were hypothecated
to pay tax security. The appellant-bank thereafter filed Application under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act seeking assistance of District Magistrate
for taking physical possession of secured assets of the borrower with the
aid of the police. Respondent-bank objected to the Application. The
District Magistrate permitted appellant-bank to take physical possession
of the secured assets except the stocks of paddy and rice pledged with
respondent-bank and restrained appellant-bank from interfering with or
taking possession of the stocks of paddy and rice. The appellant-bank got
aggrieved the order passed by the District Magistrate and filed Writ
Page No.21 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
Petition before the High Court which directed appellant-bank to
approach DRT. The DRT set aside the order of District Magistrate and
allowed the appellant-bank to sell the stock of rice and paddy which
order was challenged by the respondent-bank before Debt Recovery
Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). The DRAT remanded the matter to DRT. In
the remanded round, the DRT held that it has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate the dispute since the controversy pertained to competing
claims between two banks over the same secured assets by referring the
provisions of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act. The High Court dismissed
the Writ Petition filed by the appellant-bank and confirmed the orders
passed by the DRT and DRAT. The order passed by the High Court was
under challenge before the Supreme Court. In the light of the above
factual position, the issues which arose for consideration before the Apex
Court were as under:
E. Issues for determination
46. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having
gone through the materials on record, the following questions fall for our
consideration:
46.1. (I) What is the scope of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act? In other words,
what is the meaning of the expression “any dispute relating to securitisation or
reconstruction or non-payment of any amount due including interest” occurring in
Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act?
46.2. (II) What is the significance of the expression “arises amongst any of the
parties, namely, the bank or financial institution or asset reconstruction company
or qualified buyer” used in Section 11 read with Section 2 of the SARFAESI Act?
What is the underlying object behind prescribing arbitration for the
adjudication of disputes between a bank, financial institution, asset
reconstruction company or qualified buyer, in Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act?
46.3. (III) Whether the existence of a written arbitration agreement between
the parties is required for the purpose of resolution of disputes under Section
11 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002? In other words, is there any conflict between the
Page No.22 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
decisions of Oriental Bank of Commerce [Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Canara
Bank, 2011 SCC OnLine DRAT 8 : (2011) 4 BC 14] and Federal Bank [Federal
Bank Ltd. v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd., 2010 SCC OnLine DRAT 138] ?
46.4. (IV) Whether Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 should be construed
as mandatory or directory in its nature?
32) Thus, one of the issues for consideration before the Apex
Court in Bank of India vs. Sri Nangli Rice Mills (supra) was about scope
of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act and the exact meaning of the
expression “any dispute relating to securitisation or reconstruction or non-
payment of any amount due including interest”. The Apex Court examined
the entire case law on the subject, including judgments of various High
Courts, and held in paragraphs 69 to 71 of the judgment as under:
69. The object underlying Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act insofar as it
mandates arbitration or conciliation as the only mechanism for resolution of
disputes between a bank, financial institution, ARC, etc. and ousts the
jurisdiction of DRTs under Section 17 for adjudicating such disputes is to
ensure that ancillary or collateral disputes that may arise between competing
secured creditors do not hinder the larger purpose of the SARFAESI Act of
facilitating recoveries of dues from the borrowers expeditiously by
enforcement of secured assets or other means provided thereunder. It is to
ensure that discord among secured creditors should not impede, derail,
or stall the recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, which are
designed with the idea of time-bound adjudication with minimal
interference.
70. In the absence of any such mandate as enshrined in Section 11 of the
SARFAESI Act, every conflict between secured creditors over a security interest
would ultimately just prolong the recovery proceedings against the borrower
and thwart any possibility of a meaningful recovery of bad debts. By requiring
such disputes to be referred to arbitration, the legislature has effectively
sought to avoid a situation where squabbles between secured creditors
obstruct or delay the realisation of the value of the secured assets. Both
the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act envision DRTs and DRAT as specialised
forum for or facilitating and effectuating recovery against defaulting
borrowers, and not for resolving disputes inter se secured creditors. Their
jurisdiction is primarily directed towards the adjudication of recovery
certificates, enforcement of security interest, and addressing borrower
objections under Section 17. The nature of proceedings before DRT is largelyPage No.23 of 41
6 May 2026::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026summary, intended to enthuse efficiency in recovery of dues and save such
proceedings from the perils of pendency. This is the very reason why the
legislature consciously omitted the term “borrower” in Section 11 of the
SARFAESI Act.
71. The category of disputes contemplated under Section 11 of the SARFAESI
Act are those which pertain to the rights and entitlements of secured creditors
inter se, in relation to the enforcement of security interest independent of the
borrower’s liability. The entire scheme of the SARFAESI Act is premised on the
liability of the borrower being crystallised by virtue of its classification as a
non-performing asset by the secured creditor. The kind of disputes that may
arise from the scheme of the SARFAESI Act, broadly fall into two categories
being: (i) disputes in relation to the recovery proceedings or measures taken
under the said Act; and (ii) disputes pertaining to any rights or claims in
respect of the secured asset. The former disputes concern only the secured
creditor and the borrower, although such disputes have a bearing on the
security interest or secured asset, yet such proceedings are more concerned
with the manner of recovery and the measures thereto and thus, encompass
disputes between the borrower and secured creditor(s) alone. However, the
latter disputes are specifically in respect of the secured asset or security
interest, the nature of dispute is not in relation to the manner of recovery but
rather the manner of apportionment of the recovery proceeds either directly or
indirectly, and thus, such disputes arise and concern the secured creditors that
are covered under the SARFAESI Act, namely, banks, financial institutions,
asset reconstruction companies and qualified buyers. The legislature keeping
the aforesaid distinction in mind, incorporated the provisions of Section(s) 11
and 17 of the SARFAESI Act, for resolution of disputes pertaining to any rights
or claims in respect of the secured asset and disputes in relation to the
recovery proceedings or measures taken thereunder, respectively.
(emphasis added)
33) Mr. Ardeshir has strenuously relied on findings recorded by
the Apex Court in paragraph Nos.69 to 71 of the judgment in support of
his contention that only a discord or dispute or squabble between two
secured creditors can be resolved under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act.
34) The Apex Court in Bank of India vs. Sri Nangli Rice Mills
went ahead with the issue of interpretation of the expression “relating to
securitisation or reconstruction or non-payment of any amount due
Page No.24 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
including interest” appearing in Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act. It took
into consideration definition of the term ‘securitisation’ appearing in
Section 2(z) of SARFAESI Act and has held in paragraph 79 that dispute
between the Appellant and Respondent therein did not pertain to either
securitisation or reconstruction. The Apex Court thereafter went into the
issue of meaning of the expression “non-payment of any amount due
including interest” and has concluded that for the purpose of Section 11 of
the SARFAESI Act, the issue of priority of charge would inherently and
intrinsically constitute dispute relating to “non-payment of any amount
due”. In paragraph 82 of the judgment, the Apex Court has dealt with the
instance of borrower defaulting on repayment after availing credit
facilities extended by two banks and has held that non-payment of loan
amount would lead to “a dispute” and that such dispute is likely to
concern priority of charges over the borrower’s assets. The Apex Court
has thus concluded that where dispute between banks fundamentally
relates to “non-payment of any amount due including interest”, Section 11
of the SARFAESI Act would apply. The Apex Court has held in paragraphs
76 to 80 and 82 to 89 as under:
76. The word “dispute” used in Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act does not take
into account “any dispute” that arises out of “any reason whatsoever”. The
scope and meaning of the said term has been qualified and limited by the
provision itself, more particularly, the expression “relating to securitisation or
reconstruction or non-payment of any amount due including interest”. Hence,
Section 11 would be attracted only where the dispute arises in relation to (i)
securitisation, or (ii) reconstruction, or (iii) non-payment of any amount due
(including interest).
77. Section 2(z) of the SARFAESI Act defines “securitisation” as
“2. (z) “securitisation” means acquisition of financial assets by any
asset reconstruction company from any originator, whether by raisingPage No.25 of 41
6 May 2026::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026of funds by such asset reconstruction company from qualified buyers by
issue of security receipts representing undivided interest in such
financial assets or otherwise;”
78. Section 2(b) of the Act defines “asset reconstruction” as
“2.(b) “asset reconstruction” means acquisition by any asset
reconstruction company of any right or interest of any bank or financial
institution in any financial assistance for the purpose of realisation of
such financial assistance;”
79. It is manifest from the foregoing discussion that the present case at hand,
more particularly dispute between the appellant and the respondent Banks
does not pertain to either securitisation or reconstruction. It does not involve
any acquisition of financial assets or rights by an asset reconstruction company
(ARC). Rather, the crux of the issue is whether the controversy involving the
competing claims of rights over the stocks of goods by hypothecation or pledge
and the dispute therein falls within the scope of Section 11 of the SARFAESI
Act, more particularly the third category of disputes delineated thereunder
pertaining to “non-payment of any amount due including interest”.
(c) Meaning of the expression “non-payment of any amount due including
interest”
80. The scope and meaning of the phrase “non-payment of any amount due
including interest”, used in Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act warrants careful
examination. It is pertinent to note that the statute employs the term “any”
amount, thereby refraining from limiting its application to a specific category
of amounts that may be owed to a party mentioned in the provision. The
expression “any amount due, including interest”, must be construed in light of
the purpose of the Act and the provisions contained therein. The plain
meaning of the term “any amount due” encompasses amounts that remain
unpaid beyond the due date. However, the aforesaid is only one element of the
meaning of the said expression.
82. A situation of “non-payment of any amount” or an overdue arises when
one party fails to fulfil their obligation to pay the party they are indebted to.
For the purposes of the present case at hand, we will be focussing on the scope
of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act specifically in the context of disputes
between two banks, excluding financial institutions, asset reconstruction
companies (ARCs), or qualified buyers, as otherwise contemplated under the
provision. In cases, involving two banks acting as creditors, a dispute may not
arise directly between the banks due to the “non-payment of any amount” they
owe to each other. Instead, disputes typically emerge because of the borrower’s
failure to discharge their debt obligations. For instance, if a borrower defaults
on repayment after availing of credit facilities extended by two banks, issues of
Page No.26 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
non-payment of loan amounts (including interest) owed by the borrower, the
same may lead to a dispute. Such a dispute is likely to concern the priority
of charges over the borrower’s assets, especially in situations where the
borrower has secured loans from both banks by mortgaging the same
property. In the present case, the question of priority arises due to the
simultaneous loans extended by the appellant and the respondent Banks and
the creation of charges over the same security.
83. In cases such as the present one, the authority to determine which bank
holds the prior charge over the borrower’s assets becomes a significant issue
for consideration. There have been instances where such disputes have been
referred to DRT or civil courts for adjudication. The question of determining
the priority of charge typically arises after the borrower defaults on their
obligations and their assets are classified as NPAs. In such scenarios, two or
more banks may assert competing claims over the same secured asset.
84. The dispute stems from the borrower’s failure to discharge their debt
obligations, including the amounts they were bound to pay to the banks. This
non-payment gives rise to a conflict between the creditors regarding the
hierarchy of their respective charges over the borrower’s assets. Consequently,
the issue of priority of charge is inherently and intrinsically linked to the
borrower’s “non-payment of any amount due” as contemplated under Section 11
of the SARFAESI Act. This provision, therefore, would undoubtedly bring such
disputes within its ambit, and thereby mandate resolution of such disputes
through conciliation or arbitration as prescribed under the 1996 Act.
85. It is imperative to carefully examine the bare text of Section 11 of the
SARFAESI Act. The said provision does not stipulate that the “amount due”
must be owed directly between the two banks, financial institutions, ARCs, etc.
The language of the provision is clear and discernible: “Where any
dispute relating to […] non-payment of any amount due, including interest,
arises amongst any […]”. The broad phrasing of the aforesaid expression
signifies a wide import of its meaning which would include a various
range of scenarios where disputes are connected to unpaid amounts,
including those arising due to third-party defaults, such as indirect
defaults of the borrowers.
86. For illustration, a borrower may owe a certain amount to Bank A and
another amount to Bank B, after both of these banks have hypothecated the
borrower’s property. If the borrower defaults and fails to repay these loans, a
dispute may arise between Bank A and Bank B regarding their respective claims
over the borrower’s mortgaged assets. This dispute is inherently and
intrinsically linked to the borrower’s “non-payment of any amount due including
interest”, which the borrower was obligated to pay under the terms of their
respective loan agreements with the banks.
Page No.27 of 41 6 May 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:04:25 ::: Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
87. Thus, it follows that where the dispute between the banks is fundamentally
related to the “non-payment of any amount due including interest”, which may be
triggered by the actions of a borrower, Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act would
apply. Consequently such disputes being those which fall squarely within the
ambit of the said provision, would mandate the resolution of such disputes
through the mechanisms of conciliation or arbitration as provided under the
1996 Act. This interpretation aligns with both the language, the legislative
intent behind Section 11 and the avowed object and spirit of the SARFAESI Act.
88. In the present case, a dispute has arisen between the appellant and the
respondent Banks regarding their respective claims over the stocks of the
borrower Company. The controversy primarily on the surface entails the
method of creation of charge on the stocks. The appellant Bank asserts its
claim based on a hypothecation agreement, whereby the stocks of the borrower
Company were hypothecated in its favour. On the other hand, the respondent
Bank claims a superior right by virtue of a pledge created over the same
security, in terms of Section 172 of the Contract Act. It is pertinent to note
that, Section 31(b) of the SARFAESI Act, stipulates that the provisions of the
SARFAESI Act will not apply to movables that have pledged.
89. However, a closer look would reveal that the dispute in substance is not
merely concerned with whether the rights of either the appellant or the
respondent Banks are enforceable by virtue of the manner in which they have
been created. Rather, the dispute pertains to the priority of charge between
two banks than the mode of its creation. The contention that the charge,
being created by way of pledge, falls outside the ambit of the Act under
Section 31(b) is misplaced. This is because the exclusion under Section
31(b) applies to disputes between the borrower and the lender
concerning the pledge of movables, where such dispute is purely in
regard to enforcement of such right qua the borrower. However, the
present dispute between the appellant and the respondent Banks is
regarding their respective rights over the stocks. The manner in which
the charge was created, be it by pledge or hypothecation, is irrelevant to
the determination of priority between the two Banks. The said issue will
only assume importance, once the rights of each of the Banks are
crystallised, and thereafter enforcement of security on the strength of
such rights is sought. Hence, the present case falls under the ambit of
Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act.
(emphasis and underlining added)
35) Thus, in Bank of India vs. Sri Nangli Rice Mills (supra), the
Apex Court has held that when a borrower defaults in payment of rent
availed from two banks, the dispute between the two banks would not be
a dispute pertaining to either securitisation or reconstruction, but the
Page No.28 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
same would be a dispute relating to “non-payment of any amount due
including interest”.
36) Though Mr. Ardeshir has sought to contend that the
judgment of the Apex Court in Bank of India vs. Sri Nangli Rice Mills
(supra) conclusively answers the issue involved in the present
Application on account of clear findings that only disputes between two
secured creditors can be adjudicated under Section 11 of the SARFAESI
Act, the judgment needs to be read in the context of the issue involved
before the Apex Court. No doubt, the Apex Court has made certain
observations in paragraphs 69 to 71 of the judgment that disputes
between two secured creditors can be adjudicated under Section 11 of
the SARFAESI Act. However, those observations are made in the light of
issue raised in the case where jurisdiction of DRT to decide disputes
between appellant-bank and respondent-bank (both secured creditors)
was under consideration. The Apex Court was deciding whether
provisions of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act would bar the remedy of
either of the banks to the dispute to approach the DRT. The Apex Court
has ruled that the arbitration under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act is
the only remedy available to the disputant banks to resolve their
disputes amongst each other relating to the security interest and that
the jurisdiction of DRT would not be available for resolution of those
disputes.
37) I am unable to read the judgment of the Apex Court in Bank
of India vs. Sri Nangli Rice Mills (supra) the way Mr. Ardeshir wants me
to read. The judgment is an authority on the issue that when disputes
Page No.29 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
arise between two banks over non-payment of any amount due which get
triggered by the action of the borrower, Section 11 of SARFAESI Act is the
only remedy to resolve that dispute between the banks. It is well settled
principle that judgment is an authority on what it decides and not what
can be logically deduced therefrom. [SEE: Commissioner of Customs
(Port), Chennai vs. Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd. 4, Secunderabad
Club vs. CIT5]. The Apex Court has only dealt with one of the nature of
disputes which may arise between two banks or a bank and a financial
institution relating to non-payment of loan by the same borrower.
However, as rightly pointed out by Ms. Gupta, the Apex Court has not
curtailed or restricted the categories of dispute which may arise between
two banks or between a bank and a financial institution which would fit
within the ambit of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act. This is clear from
use of the words “likely” in paragraph 82 of the judgment in Bank of
India vs. Sri Nangli Rice Mills (supra). In paragraph 82 of the judgment
the Apex Court has held that when a borrower defaults on repayment
after availing credit facilities from two banks, the dispute between two
banks “is likely to concern the priority of charges over borrowers’ assets”,
especially in situations where the borrower has secured loans from both
banks by mortgaging same property. Thus, priority of charges can be one
type of dispute which may arise between two competing banks, is what
the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 82 of the judgment. This
would mean that there can be several other types of disputes which may
arise between two banks or between a bank and financial institution
when same borrower has availed credit facilities from them. In my view
4
(2007) 5 SCC 371
5
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1004
Page No.30 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
therefore, the judgment in Bank of India vs. Sri Nangli Rice Mills
(supra) cannot be read to mean that only disputes relating to priority of
charge or apportionment of sale proceeds between two competing banks
having security interest over same property would be covered by
provisions of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act.
38) In fact, in paragraph 85 of the judgment in Bank of India vs.
Sri Nangli Rice Mills (supra), the Apex Court has held that the
expression “non-payment of any amount due including interest” is broadly
phrased, signifying the wide import of its meaning, which would include
“various range of scenarios” where disputes are connected to unpaid
amounts, including those arising due to third party defaults such as
indirect default of the borrowers. In paragraph 87 of the judgment, the
Apex Court has concluded that where dispute between banks
fundamentally relate to non-payment of any amount, which may be
triggered by the actions of the borrower, Section 11 of SARFAESI Act
would apply.
39) Reading of observations in paragraph 89 of the judgment in
Bank of India vs. Sri Nangli Rice Mills (supra) would further make it
clear that Section 11 of SARFAESI Act would not restrict itself only to the
secured creditors and that the rigors of Section 11 of SARFAESI Act
would get attracted to disputes for which exclusion provisions under
Section 31 of SARFAESI Act apply. It was sought to be contended before
the Apex Court that since charge was created by pledge, the same fell
outside the purview of SARFAESI Act under Section 31(b). Under Section
31(b), provisions of SARFAESI Act do not apply to a pledge of movables
Page No.31 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
within the meaning of Section 172 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Section 31 of the SARFAESI Act provides thus:
31. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases.–
The provisions of this Act shall not apply to–
(a) a lien on any goods, money or security given by or under the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872) or the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (3 of 1930) or any
other law for the time being in force;
(b) a pledge of movables within the meaning of section 172 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872);
(c) creation of any security in any aircraft as defined in clause (1) of section 2
of the Aircraft Act, 1934 (24 of 1934);
(d) creation of security interest in any vessel as defined in clause (55) of section
3 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (44 of 1958);
*****
(f) any rights of unpaid seller under section 47 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (3
of 1930);
(g) 2 [any properties not liable to attachment (excluding the properties
specifically charged with the debt recoverable under this Act)]or sale under the
first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908);
(h) any security interest for securing repayment of any financial asset not
exceeding one lakh rupees;
(i) any security interest created in agricultural land;
(j) any case in which the amount due is less than twenty per cent. of the
principal amount and interest thereon.
40) By relying on provisions of Section 31(b) of the SARFAESI
Act, it was urged before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bank of India vs. Sri
Nangli Rice Mills (supra) that since disputes involved priority of charge
between two banks in respect of a pledge, the same fell outside the ambit
of the SARFAESI Act. The Apex Court has however rejected the
contention by holding that exclusion under Section 31(b) of the
SARFAESI Act applies to disputes between the borrower and lender
concerning the pledge of movables where such dispute is purely in
regard to enforcement of such right qua the borrower. The Apex Court
further held that the dispute before it was between appellant-bank and
Page No.32 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
respondent-bank regarding their respective rights over the stock and the
manner in which the charge was created, be it by pledge or
hypothecation, was irrelevant for determining priority between the two
banks. Thus, in paragraph 89 of the judgment, the Apex Court has held
that provisions of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act would apply even
when the charge over which dispute arises between two banks is outside
the ambit of the Act under Section 31(b). Thus even disputes between
two banks which travel outside the scope of SARFAESI Act can be
arbitrated under Section 11. Considering the observations of the Apex
Court in paragraph 89 of the judgment, it is difficult to conclude that
only disputes between two secured creditors would be covered by
provisions of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act.
41) Thus, the judgment of the Apex Court in Bank of India vs.
Sri Nangli Rice Mills (supra), far from assisting the case of Axis Bank, it
actually militates against it. Various observations of the Apex Court in
the judgment clearly indicate that wide range of disputes connected to
unpaid amounts between two banks / financial institutions can be
subjected to arbitration under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act. The
judgment, in fact, goes a step further ahead and upholds applicability of
Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act even to disputes where the charge is
specifically excluded from the ambit of the Act under Section 31(b).
42) Ms. Gupta has relied upon judgment of learned Single Judge
of Calcutta High Court in Reliance Commercial Finance Limited vs. Axis
Bank Limited (supra) in which similar facts were involved. In case before
the Calcutta High Court, the borrower approached the petitioner therein
Page No.33 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
(financial institution) for transferring the loan already disbursed by Axis
Bank. The petitioner therein took over the loan from Axis Bank by paying
the outstanding loan amount to the borrower. The petitioner therein
claimed entitlement over title deeds deposited with Axis Bank after
taking over of the loans. This is how exactly identical circumstances were
involved in Reliance Commercial Finance Limited vs. Axis Bank Limited
(supra). The learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court held that
there existed jural relationship between the Petitioner therein and Axis
Bank. It is further held that even in absence of written arbitration
agreement between the parties, Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act fulfills
the requirement of Section 7 of the Arbitration Act provided that the
other parameters laid down in Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act are
fulfilled. The Apex Court left the issue of fulfilment of the parameters to
be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal. It is held in paragraphs 8 to 12 of
the judgment as under:
8. Vidya Drolia (supra) was rendered in a case relating to an arbitration
agreement between the parties. In the present case, the fiction of existence of
arbitration agreement is provided by the Act of 2002 namely Section 11
thereof. Therefore, it would be futile to embark upon the exercise to find out as
to whether there exists a written arbitration agreement between the parties in
terms of Section 7 of the Act of 1996. Section 11 of the Act of 2002 fulfils the
requirement of Section 7 of the Act of 1996 provided the other parameters laid
down in Section 11 in the Act of 2002 are fulfilled.
9. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 49,39,810/-
to the respondent by a letter dated December 20, 2017. The letter is of the
petitioner. The letter was received by the respondent. Therefore, prima facie,
there exists a jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. As
to the exact parameters of the jural relationship need not be decided in an
application under Section of the Act of 1996. These are the disputed arena
which the arbitrator need to decide upon.
10. As noted above, the petitioner comes within the definition of financial
institution as defined under the Act of 2002. However this finding is prima facie
Page No.34 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
for the purpose of adjudicating an application under Section 11 of the Act of
1996. The parties are at liberty to adduce evidence before the arbitral tribunal
to disprove such issue.
11. Prima facie, the parameters under Section 11 of the Act of 2002 being
fulfilled, it would be appropriate to refer the disputes between the
parties to arbitration.
12. I am not in a position to accept the contention of the respondent that
an arbitration agreement has to be in writing in view of the plain
language of Section 11 of the Act of 2002. Section 11 of the Act of 2002
raises a deemed statutory fiction of the existence of an arbitration
agreement, provided the other parameters are fulfilled, and does not
require an agreement in writing to be entered into between the parties in
terms of Section 7 of the Act of 1996. The deeming provision for existence of
an arbitration agreement will appear from the user of the words “as if the
parties to the dispute have consented in writing for determination of such
dispute by conciliation or arbitration and the provisions of that Act shall apply
accordingly” in Section 11 of the Act of 1996.
(emphasis added)
43) The judgment of Calcutta High Court in Reliance
Commercial Finance Limited vs. Axis Bank Limited (supra) is taken note
of by the Apex Court in paragraph 66 of the judgment in Bank of India
vs. Sri Nangli Rice Mills (supra). Paragraph 66 of the judgment reads
thus:
66. In Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd. [Reliance Commercial
Finance Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 4372] the petitioner, a fi-
nancial institution under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, sought arbitration under
Section 11 of the 1996 Act, relying on the statutory arbitration provision en-
shrined in Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act. The dispute arose from the peti-
tioner’s takeover of a loan from the respondent Bank, and subsequent claims
regarding mortgage documents and related transactions. The respondent ar-
gued that there was no privity of contract or written arbitration agreement
thus, there could be no reference to arbitration as the statutory conditions of
existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the 1996 Act were not
fulfilled. However, the Calcutta High Court held [Reliance Commercial Finance
Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 4372] that Section 11 of the SAR-
FAESI Act creates a statutory fiction of an arbitration agreement, negating the
need for a written agreement under Section 7. It further observed that since
Page No.35 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
prima facie, the jural relationship between the parties based on the payment
and correspondence was one as contemplated under Section 11 of the SAR-
FAESI Act, the High Court proceeded to refer the dispute to arbitration and ap-
point an arbitrator.
44) Though the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Reliance
Commercial Finance Limited vs. Axis Bank Limited (supra) does not
provide real assistance for determination of the issue at hand, on
account of leaving the disputed issue to be determined by the Arbitrator,
the fact remains that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while taking note of the
judgment in paragraph 66 of Bank of India vs. Sri Nangli Rice Mills
(supra), has not disturbed the ratio of the judgment. In the present case,
instead of leaving the issue of arbitrability to be decided by the
Arbitrator, I have considered it appropriate to decide the issue myself. In
fact, Mr. Ardeshir was fair enough in urging this Court to decide the issue
rather than leaving it for the arbitrator. Even otherwise, the ratio of the
judgment in Bank of India vs. Sri Nangli Rice Mills (supra) clearly
creates an impression that wide range of the disputes between two banks
or between a bank and financial institution over “non-payment of any
amount due including interest” would fit into the ambit of Section 11 of
the SARFAESI Act.
45) Reverting to the facts of the present case, the dispute
between the Applicant-Financial Institution and Respondent No.1-Bank
is triggered by the acts of the borrowers in not repaying the amounts due
to both Applicant and to Axis Bank. The Axis Bank is refusing to part
with the title deeds because it also wants to recover monies from the
same borrowers. The dispute would thus get covered by the expression
‘non-payment of any amount due, including interest, arises amongst any
Page No.36 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
… bank or financial institution’ used in Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act.
Both Applicant as well as Axis Bank have disbursed loans to the
borrowers by taking into consideration security in respect of same
subject property. So far as Respondent No.1-Axis Bank is concerned,
there is mortgage created over the subject property in its favour. For
Applicant, though creation of such mortgage is envisaged, the acts of
Respondent No.1 are preventing the Applicant from creating such
mortgage in its favour. Otherwise, various documents executed by the
borrowers in favour of the Applicant would leave no manner of doubt
that the loan has been sanctioned to the borrowers on security of
mortgage of the subject property. The Sanction Letter dated 31 August
2023 specifically provides that the loan of Rs.4,70,00,000/- is sanctioned
against mortgage of the subject property. However, the actual mortgage
cannot be executed on account of Axis Bank’s refusal to part with the
title deeds of the subject property. Thus, though Applicant is not yet a
secured creditor and wanting to become one, ultimately the dispute
between Applicant and Axis Bank relate to rights in respect of same
subject property against security of which loans are disbursed by both of
them to the same borrowers.
46) In my view, in the peculiar facts of the present case, where
acts of Respondent-Axis Bank have resulted in non-creation of security
interest over same subject property in favour of the Applicant, giving a
very narrow interpretation to the language used in Section 11 of the
SARFAESI Act would cause violence to the very objective behind
enacting the said provision. Section 11 of SARFAESI Act is incorporated
in the statute to ensure that two banks or a bank and Financial
Page No.37 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
Institution get their disputes resolved through arbitration when they
arise on account of acts of same borrower. The objective behind Section
11 of the SARFAESI Act is that squabbles between two banks do not come
in the way of one bank / financial institution seeking enforcement of
security against the borrower under the SARFAESI Act. In the present
case, if Axis Bank invokes provisions of Section 13(2) and/or secures
measures under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the Applicant cannot be
permitted to challenge notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act
or directions issued by District Magistrate under Section 14 before the
DRT. Applicant cannot come in the way of Axis Bank seeking to recover
its dues by engaging it into litigation before the DRT. Applicant must
have its disputes with Axis Bank resolved in Section 11 arbitration. This
is the true purport of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act. The disputes
between the Applicant and Axis Bank will have to be necessarily resolved
under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act. The only difference in the present
case is that Applicant cannot, as of now, invoke remedies under Sections
13 and/or 14 of the SARFAESI Act on account of non-creation of security
interest in its favour and therefore, it is forced to invoke arbitration
clause in the loan agreement against the borrowers. Since disputes
between the Applicant and Axis Bank cannot be mixed with the right of
the Applicant to recover monies from the borrowers, there can be two
separate references in the present case. But instead of making two
separate references, it would be better that the same Arbitral Tribunal
decides both the disputes. Axis Bank would be free to take measures
against the borrowers under Section 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act and
mere pendency of Section 11 reference would not impede such action.
Page No.38 of 41 6 May 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 01:04:25 ::: Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
Thus, making of Section 11 reference would not prejudice the interests of
Axis Bank.
47) In fact, forcing Applicant to get only disputes against
borrowers arbitrated through contractual arbitration arrangement may
defeat the entire remedy available to the Applicant as only Axis Bank
would deal with the mortgaged assets even though mortgage in respect
of those assets was meant to be created in favour of the Applicant. In
that view of the matter, presence of Axis Bank is otherwise necessary in
arbitral proceedings to be conducted against the borrowers. While
Applicant can invoke contractual arbitration clause against the
borrowers, it can rope in Axis Bank on the basis of statutory arbitration
provision under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act. I do not see any reason
why common arbitration cannot be conducted on the basis of contractual
arbitration clause and statutory arbitration provision.
48) The issue as to whether statutory arbitration can be
conducted under Section 11 of SARFAESI Act or not cannot be decided
on the basis of the stand taken by the Applicant in Section 9 petition. It
is well settled that the interim measures can be made under Section 9
against third parties also. Therefore, merely because the Applicant
described Axis Bank as a third party in Section 9 petition, the same
would not preclude the Applicant from seeking a reference against Axis
Bank when in law such reference lies.
49) Considering the overall conspectus of the case, in my view,
reference to arbitration needs to be made in the present case for
Page No.39 of 41
6 May 2026
::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026
adjudication of disputes and differences between Applicant, Axis Bank
and borrowers. While arbitration against borrowers can be conducted on
the basis of a direct arbitration clause, Section 11 of SARFAESI Act can
be invoked for the purpose of inferring the consent to arbitration
between Applicant and Axis Bank. The issues sought to be raised about
merits of claim of the Applicant by borrowers cannot be decided in
exercise of referral jurisdiction.
50) In view of the discussions above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
(A) Hon’ble Smt. Justice Anuja Prabhudessai, Former Judge of
this Court is appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the
disputes and differences between the parties referred to above.
The contact details of the Arbitrator are as under :
Office Address :- 106, Arcadia Building, NCPA Marg,
Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021Email ID :- [email protected]
Mobile No.:- 9823855445
(B) A copy of this order be communicated to the learned sole
Arbitrator by the Advocates for the Petitioner within a period of
one week from the date of upload of this order. The Applicant
shall provide the contact and communication particulars of the
parties to the Arbitral Tribunal alongwith a copy of this order.
(C) The learned sole Arbitrator is requested to forward the
statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(8) read withPage No.40 of 41
6 May 2026::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
Neeta Sawant CARAP-95-2026Section 12(1) of the Act to the parties within a period of 2 weeks
from receipt of a copy of this order.
(D) The parties shall appear before the learned sole Arbitrator
on such date and at such place as indicated by him, to obtain
appropriate direction with regard to conduct of the arbitration
including fixing a schedule for pleadings, examination of
witnesses, if any, schedule of hearings etc.
(E) The sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to the fees prescribed
under the Bombay High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules,
2018 and the arbitral costs and fees of the Arbitrator shall be borne
by the parties in equal proportion and shall be subject to the final
Award that may be passed by the Tribunal.
51) All rights and contentions between parties on merits are
expressly kept open to be agitated before the Arbitral Tribunal so
constituted.
52) With the above directions, the Commercial Arbitration
Application is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
53) After the judgment is pronounced, the learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1 seeks stay of the judgment for a period of
6 weeks. Since stay is sought only by Respondent No.1, the operative part
of the judgment shall remain stayed for a period of 6 weeks only qua
Respondent No.1 and the reference qua Respondent Nos.2 to 5 is not
stayed.
Digitally
NEETA
signed by
NEETA
SHAILESH
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.05.06
20:47:11
+0530 Page No.41 of 41
6 May 2026::: Uploaded on – 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 01:04:25 :::
