Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The HC determined that the third respondent, with an asset size of Rs.16.30 crores as of March 31, 2024, failed to meet the Rs.100 crores threshold established in the February 24, 2020 Notification. Consequently, the respondent does not qualify as a "financial institution" under Section 2(1)(m)(iv) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and therefore cannot be considered a "secured creditor" entitled to invoke Section 14 provisions. Since the respondent lacked standing to file an application with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for possession of secured assets, the Court issued a writ of Prohibition, finding that the jurisdictional prerequisite was not satisfied. The application was accordingly disposed of.
The HC determined that the third respondent, with an asset size of Rs.16.30 crores as of March 31, 2024, failed to meet the Rs.100 crores threshold established in the February 24, 2020 Notification. Consequently, the respondent does not qualify as a "financial institution" under Section 2(1)(m)(iv) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and therefore cannot be considered a "secured creditor" entitled to invoke Section 14 provisions. Since the respondent lacked standing to file an application with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for possession of secured assets, the Court issued a writ of Prohibition, finding that the jurisdictional prerequisite was not satisfied. The application was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
