<?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>2005 (7) TMI 365 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110121</link>
    <description>Section 31(g) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 does not exempt mortgaged residential property where the asset is specifically charged with the debt recoverable under the Act; the objection to enforcement on that ground therefore fails. The Act also operates independently of the monetary threshold in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, so proceedings under the Securitisation Act are not invalid merely because the debt falls below that threshold; that objection also fails. On that basis, no ground was made out for review and the interim order was allowed to stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:02:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 365 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110121</link>
      <description>Section 31(g) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 does not exempt mortgaged residential property where the asset is specifically charged with the debt recoverable under the Act; the objection to enforcement on that ground therefore fails. The Act also operates independently of the monetary threshold in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, so proceedings under the Securitisation Act are not invalid merely because the debt falls below that threshold; that objection also fails. On that basis, no ground was made out for review and the interim order was allowed to stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110121</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>