LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 02 September 2026

Whether a bank, as defined by Section 2(1)(c) of the SARFAESI Act, can take recourse to the provisions thereof for recovery of a debt assigned to or taken over by it from a financial entity that was not governed by the SARFAESI Act at the time of creation of such debt?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Trupti Sanjay Mehta and others
2026 INSC 943 · Civil Appeal No. 8531 of 2015
Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar · Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.2(1)(c) Securitisation and Rec…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Yes. Once a claim is live and owing on the date the SARFAESI Act comes into force, its provisions are available as and when the Act becomes applicable to the institution holding that loan account. By the same logic, acquisition of a non-performing secured loan account by an institution to which the Act already applies, from an entity that does not come within its ambit, immediately clothes that loan account with the attributes of a ‘secured debt’ covered by the Act. It makes no difference whether it is the loan along with the institution that comes within the ambit of the Act, or the loan alone, by being taken over by a ‘bank’ to which the Act is already applicable.

Headnote

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — s.2(1)(c) — s.2(1)(m) — s.2(1)(zd) — s.13 — s.14 — Debt taken over by a bank from an entity outside the Act — Secured debt — Enforcement of security interest — SARFAESI Act, 2002 — s.2(1)(c) — Loan account acquired by a bank — Attributes of a secured debt — Held: Acquisition of a non-performing secured loan account by an institution to which the SARFAESI Act already applies clothes that account with the attributes of a ‘secured debt’. The status of the entity it was taken over from makes no difference. (¶36) SARFAESI Act, 2002 — s.2(1)(m) — Existing loan agreements — Debts owing and live — Held further: The Act applies to all loans owing and live when it became applicable, irrespective of whether the lender was a notified ‘financial institution’ on the date of execution. The date of classification as a non-performing asset has no relevance. (¶34) SARFAESI Act, 2002 — s.2(1) — Definitions — Purposive interpretation forecloses dissection — Held further: It is not open to a borrower to dissect and nit-pick the definitions in Section 2(1) to claim that the loan cannot be subjected to recovery measures thereunder; the purposive interpretation of those definitions forecloses any such argument. (¶37) SARFAESI Act, 2002 — s.13 — s.14 — Obligation to repay — No escape from the rigours of the Act — On facts, held: Borrowers who availed financial assistance from an entity outside the Act enjoy no greater freedom to commit default in repayment; their premise for escaping its rigours is without legal foundation. The bank's appeal allowed and the securitisation application restored; the other two appeals dismissed. (¶32, 41)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 36The decisions in M.D. Frozen Foods (supra) and Indiabulls (supra), therefore, put it beyond the pale of doubt that once a claim is ‘live and owing’ as on the date of coming into force of the SARFAESI Act, the provisions thereof would be available, as and when it becomes applicable to the institution holding that loan account. By the same logic, when the institution is one to which the SARFAESI Act is already applicable, acquisition of a non-performing secured loan account by such institution from an entity, that does not come within the ambit of the SARFAESI Act, would immediately clothe the said loan account with the attributes of a ‘secured debt’ covered by the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In essence, it makes no difference as to whether it is the loan/debt along with the institution that comes within the ambit of the SARFAESI Act, as in the earlier two decisions, or it is the loan/debt alone which comes within the ambit thereof, by virtue of it being taken over by a ‘bank’ to which the SARFAESI Act is already applicable. In both cases, the provisions of the SARFAESI Act would be available for effecting recovery of the loan/debt.
Acts & Sections
s.2(1)(c) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002s.2(1)(m) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002s.2(1)(zd) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002s.13(4) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002s.14 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Trupti Sanjay Mehta and others — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does the SARFAESI Act apply to a loan agreement executed when the lender was not a notified ‘financial institution’?Can a borrower rely on the definitions in Section 2(1) of the SARFAESI Act to resist recovery measures?Do borrowers of a NBFC outside the SARFAESI Act enjoy greater freedom to commit default than other borrowers?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections