Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 can be invoked for recovery of loans advanced before the secured creditor was notified under the Act.
Analysis: The Act was enacted as a remedial measure to enable speedy recovery of non-performing assets by substituting a summary enforcement mechanism for secured creditors. The definitions of "secured creditor", "financial institution", "borrower", "default" and "security interest" show that the machinery of enforcement is intended to operate on existing secured debts once the creditor falls within the statutory definition. A notification under the Act enlarging the category of financial institutions does not create a new right in relation to the debt itself; it merely brings the institution within the statutory enforcement framework from the date of notification. The distinction between substantive rights and procedural or remedial machinery was applied, and the later-notified institution was held entitled to invoke the Act in respect of earlier loan transactions.
Conclusion: The provisions of the Act are applicable to pre-existing loan transactions, and the contrary view was overruled.