TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
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 ✕ 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 assignee of the financial asset was entitled to be substituted and to continue the pending Section 7 proceeding, and whether the assignment agreement could be impounded or the substitution rejected on the ground of insufficient stamping.
Analysis: The assignment agreement was a registered document and the acquisition of the financial asset attracted the statutory scheme under Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The deeming effect of Section 5(2) vested the lender's rights in the assignee, and Section 5(4) enabled the pending proceeding to be continued and prosecuted by the assignee. The objection based on stamping did not displace the statutory consequence flowing from the registered assignment, and no error was shown in the refusal to impound the document or in permitting substitution.
Conclusion: The assignee was entitled to prosecute the pending proceeding, and the refusal to impound the assignment agreement was upheld against the appellant.
TaxTMI 
