Effect of repeal under SARFAESI: recovery action could not proceed under the repealed Ordinance, but fresh steps were permitted.

The repeal of the Ordinance meant that proceedings could not continue under that instrument once it was no longer in force, even though the recovery measures arose within the SARFAESI framework. The continuity clause was considered, and the operative law governing the secured assets had already come into effect. On that basis, action taken specifically under the repealed Ordinance was not sustainable as such, but the respondents were left free to take further steps under the applicable enactment and in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents could proceed against the secured assets under the SARFAESI regime when the notice referred to the Ordinance and the petitioners challenged the action as taken under a repealed instrument.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the legal effect of the repeal of the Ordinance and the continuity clause in the enactment. The record showed that the measures were initiated in the context of the SARFAESI framework and that the operative law had already come into force. The Court found that the Ordinance, as such, was not in force on the date of the impugned proceedings and, in that situation, the respondents could not continue to act under the repealed Ordinance. At the same time, the respondents were not precluded from taking further steps in accordance with law under the applicable enactment.

Conclusion: The challenge based on action under the repealed Ordinance was not accepted as a bar to all further recovery action, and liberty was granted to proceed in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was finally disposed of without costs, with leave to the respondents to continue recovery proceedings under the proper legal framework.

---