TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amendment sought to add a prayer challenging the private treaty sale conducted after measures under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 could be allowed, having regard to the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act.
Analysis: The relevant challenge concerned post-Section 13(4) action by the secured creditor, namely a sale by private treaty and the consequential prayer to declare that sale null and void. The governing legal position was clarified by the Supreme Court in later authority recognising that, under Section 17, the Debts Recovery Tribunal is not confined to events up to the stage of Section 13(4) and may examine the secured creditor's action even thereafter. The statutory scheme, including Section 17(3), permits the Tribunal in appropriate cases to set aside the transaction and restore possession or status quo ante. Once that jurisdiction exists, formal inclusion of a prayer seeking such relief does not by itself prejudice the respondents, particularly where the main proceedings already assail the secured creditor's action under Section 13(4).
Conclusion: The amendment was permissible and the petitioner's request to introduce the additional relief was allowed.
TaxTMI 
