https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109082 Economic legislation aimed at speedy recovery of secured debts was not invalid merely because another recovery statute existed, as legislative judgment in such matters is ordinarily deferred to unless palpably arbitrary. The statutory scheme was upheld as providing adequate notice, consideration of borrower objections, a post-measure remedy under section 17, and only limited civil court intervention in exceptional cases. However, the 75% pre-deposit required for proceedings under section 17 was held oppressive and illusory at the threshold, and struck down as violative of Article 14. The scheme permitting enforcement without court intervention was otherwise sustained, subject to the protection preserved by section 13(8). en-us Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2020 16:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109082 Economic legislation aimed at speedy recovery of secured debts was not invalid merely because another recovery statute existed, as legislative judgment in such matters is ordinarily deferred to unless palpably arbitrary. The statutory scheme was upheld as providing adequate notice, consideration of borrower objections, a post-measure remedy under section 17, and only limited civil court intervention in exceptional cases. However, the 75% pre-deposit required for proceedings under section 17 was held oppressive and illusory at the threshold, and struck down as violative of Article 14. The scheme permitting enforcement without court intervention was otherwise sustained, subject to the protection preserved by section 13(8). Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109082