TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in staying the operation of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal's order during pendency of the writ petition.
Analysis: The dispute concerned a challenge to proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, where the secured creditor had already proceeded to take measures under Sections 13(2) and 13(4), the sale had culminated in issuance of a sale certificate, and the challenge under Section 17 had already been dismissed by the Tribunal as barred by limitation. The review of that dismissal was entertained by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on the ground that one director had died before auction and his legal representatives were not noticed, but the Appellate Tribunal held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record to justify review. In these circumstances, the facts were sufficient to refuse interim interference with the appellate order, particularly having regard to the object of the Act to secure quick enforcement of security interest.
Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in granting the interim stay of the Appellate Tribunal's order.
TaxTMI 
