Introduction

In a recent landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has addressed a long-standing ambiguity surrounding dispute resolution among banks and financial institutions under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. This decision mandates that inter-bank disputes, when governed by valid intercreditor agreements with arbitration clauses, must be resolved through arbitration rather than statutory tribunals. The ruling brings much-needed clarity to financial institutions navigating complex legal frameworks, particularly concerning disputes arising from consortium lending arrangements.

---

Background

The SARFAESI Act was enacted to enable secured creditors—banks and financial institutions—to enforce their security interests swiftly, especially against defaulting borrowers. However, the rise of consortium lending, where multiple banks finance a borrower, has led to disagreements not between the creditors and borrower, but among the creditors themselves. These disputes often concern enforcement rights, prioritization, or the distribution of recovered proceeds.

The case that prompted this Supreme Court intervention involved two financial institutions that had entered into a consortium arrangement. Their intercreditor agreement contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose regarding the allocation of proceeds from the sale of a secured asset recovered through SARFAESI enforcement. One bank initiated SARFAESI action, while the other sought arbitration as per their agreement.

---

Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of both the SARFAESI Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, concluding that SARFAESI primarily governs disputes between secured creditors and borrowers, not among creditors themselves. The Court highlighted that unless a statute expressly excludes arbitration, parties are free to resolve disputes through arbitration if there is a valid agreement.

Importantly, the SARFAESI Act contains no such exclusion for disputes between creditors. The presence of an arbitration clause in the intercreditor agreement signaled a clear intention by the parties to resolve their disputes through arbitration. The Court emphasized the principle of party autonomy—where commercial entities can choose their preferred method of dispute resolution. It also clarified that statutory mechanisms under SARFAESI serve public interest recovery from borrowers, while inter-creditor disputes are private in nature and governed by contract.

The Court distinguished between disputes of a public nature (such as enforcement against borrowers) and those of a private, contractual nature (such as disagreements among banks over proceeds). It confirmed that only disputes that are expressly non-arbitrable by statute or relate to rights in rem (which affect the world at large) would fall outside the scope of arbitration.

---

Key Highlights of the Judgment

• Affirmation of Arbitration for Inter-Bank Disputes: The Supreme Court decisively held that arbitration clauses in intercreditor agreements are valid and enforceable, even when the disputes arise within the context of SARFAESI actions.
• Preservation of SARFAESI’s Objectives: The ruling maintains SARFAESI’s effectiveness in borrower enforcement actions, ensuring that disputes between creditors do not obstruct recovery processes.
• Clarification of Legal Framework: The decision harmonizes the operation of SARFAESI with the principles of arbitration, establishing that private commercial arrangements can opt for arbitration without conflicting with statutory provisions.
• Encouragement for Meticulous Drafting: Financial institutions are encouraged to draft intercreditor agreements with precision, ensuring clear dispute resolution clauses to avoid ambiguity.

---

Implications for Stakeholders

This ruling carries significant implications:

• For Banks and Financial Institutions: Institutions engaged in consortium lending must ensure their intercreditor agreements contain robust and clear arbitration provisions. The ruling reinforces the importance of honoring agreed dispute resolution mechanisms.
• For Legal Practitioners: This decision sets a precedent for handling similar disputes, encouraging practitioners to advise clients on the drafting and enforcement of intercreditor agreements.
• For the Legal Ecosystem: The judgment supports India’s evolving pro-arbitration environment and strengthens the country’s position as a hub for efficient commercial dispute resolution.

---

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s clarification on the interplay between the SARFAESI Act and arbitration clauses in intercreditor agreements marks a pivotal development in Indian commercial and banking law. It effectively distinguishes public law remedies designed for recovery from borrowers from private contractual arrangements among creditors. The judgment underscores the autonomy of commercial parties and the enforceability of arbitration agreements in complex financial transactions.

This decision reinforces the role of arbitration as a preferred dispute resolution mechanism in the financial sector, easing the burden on statutory tribunals and courts, and fostering confidence in India’s legal framework for commercial transactions.

---

Also Read

Call for Papers: NLUD-NUJS National Seminar on Policing, Cyber Crimes, and Cyber Security

• Date: 9 August 2025
• Location: Delhi (Offline)
• Publication Opportunity: Yes
• Register by: 15 July 2025CaseMine+3Law Insider+3Wikipedia+3

Read More

Research Associate Internships at Founder’s Office

• Duration: June 2025
• Mode: Remote
• Perks: Certificate
• Apply Nowcnica.org+1Prime Legal Law Firm+1

Read More

Call for Papers: Edited Book on “Emerging Dimensions of Mediation Law”

• Publication: Springer
• Mode: Online
• Deadline: 20 June 2025CaseMine+1latestlaws.com+1

Read More

Call for Chapters: “Balancing the Republic: Hate Speech, Constitutional Values, and Media Freedoms”

• Mode: Online
• Publication & Certificate: Yes
• Register by: 31 May 2025

Read More