<?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>2004 (6) TMI 333 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110432</link>
    <description>Under the SARFAESI Act, a secured creditor receiving objections to a notice under Section 13(2) must apply its mind to the borrower&#039;s reply and, if the objections are rejected, record brief reasons and communicate them before taking measures under Section 13(4). The reasons need not by themselves confer an immediate right to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal at that stage, but the statutory safeguard of consideration and communication must still be followed. Where the objections were neither considered nor rejected by a speaking order, the borrower&#039;s protection under the scheme was not complied with and the rejection had to be reconsidered in accordance with the prescribed procedure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:48:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147448" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 333 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110432</link>
      <description>Under the SARFAESI Act, a secured creditor receiving objections to a notice under Section 13(2) must apply its mind to the borrower&#039;s reply and, if the objections are rejected, record brief reasons and communicate them before taking measures under Section 13(4). The reasons need not by themselves confer an immediate right to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal at that stage, but the statutory safeguard of consideration and communication must still be followed. Where the objections were neither considered nor rejected by a speaking order, the borrower&#039;s protection under the scheme was not complied with and the rejection had to be reconsidered in accordance with the prescribed procedure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110432</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>