In Brief
A bank initiated enforcement proceedings against a construction company under the SARFAESI Act for loan default, taking possession of 12 properties including Item No.8 and conducting e-auction. The borrower challenged the proceedings via writ petition, claiming Item No.8 was agricultural land exempt under Section 31(i) SARFAESI Act. The High Court quashed the sale citing procedural violations and agricultural use. The Supreme Court held that: (1) a writ petition was improper when an appeal to DRAT was available; (2) the deposit schedule complied with Rules 9(3)-(4); and (3) the burden to prove agricultural use rested on the borrower, not the bank. Mere revenue records were insufficient; actual use at creation of security interest mattered. The Court restored the DRT judgment upholding the sale.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.