https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110104 The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was generally upheld, with section 17(2) treated as invalid in light of the Supreme Court ruling on the 75% pre-deposit requirement. A writ challenge to a section 13(2) notice was held premature because the notice is only a show-cause step and the borrower must first pursue statutory objections before the secured creditor. For post-11-11-2004 action, permission of the Debts Recovery Tribunal was required where a bank application was already pending. The prescribed fee under section 17 was not found arbitrary, and measures under section 13(4) were held to be subject to the statutory remedy before the Tribunal rather than direct writ interference. en-us Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:07:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110104 The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was generally upheld, with section 17(2) treated as invalid in light of the Supreme Court ruling on the 75% pre-deposit requirement. A writ challenge to a section 13(2) notice was held premature because the notice is only a show-cause step and the borrower must first pursue statutory objections before the secured creditor. For post-11-11-2004 action, permission of the Debts Recovery Tribunal was required where a bank application was already pending. The prescribed fee under section 17 was not found arbitrary, and measures under section 13(4) were held to be subject to the statutory remedy before the Tribunal rather than direct writ interference. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110104