<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (7) TMI 498 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108267</link>
    <description>The SARFAESI Act and the notification including cooperative banks were upheld as valid, being referable in pith and substance to banking and enforcement of security interests. As a procedural and remedial statute, the Act was held to apply to pre-existing loans, defaults and security interests. Simultaneous resort to SARFAESI and other recovery remedies was generally permitted, but action remained subject to binding adjudications, prohibitory orders and the BIFR statutory scheme. Before enforcement, only notice and fair opportunity were required; a full pre-decisional hearing or speaking order was not mandatory. Guarantors could be proceeded against, and post-measure tribunal review remained the ordinary remedy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2018 10:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145284" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 498 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108267</link>
      <description>The SARFAESI Act and the notification including cooperative banks were upheld as valid, being referable in pith and substance to banking and enforcement of security interests. As a procedural and remedial statute, the Act was held to apply to pre-existing loans, defaults and security interests. Simultaneous resort to SARFAESI and other recovery remedies was generally permitted, but action remained subject to binding adjudications, prohibitory orders and the BIFR statutory scheme. Before enforcement, only notice and fair opportunity were required; a full pre-decisional hearing or speaking order was not mandatory. Guarantors could be proceeded against, and post-measure tribunal review remained the ordinary remedy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>