https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111043 Constitutional validity of the securitisation statute cannot be reopened through sub silentio where the Supreme Court has already upheld the enactment as a whole. DRT jurisdiction over applications challenging enforcement measures depends on territorial jurisdiction and is not restricted by the RDB Act's pecuniary threshold. Until rules prescribe a fee under the securitisation statute, an ad valorem fee under the DRT Procedure Rules is not payable; applications remain maintainable on the specified fixed fee. Banks and financial institutions must elect between parallel recovery proceedings. Possession measures under section 13(4) permit symbolic possession only; physical dispossession requires the prescribed statutory process. en-us Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:14:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111043 Constitutional validity of the securitisation statute cannot be reopened through sub silentio where the Supreme Court has already upheld the enactment as a whole. DRT jurisdiction over applications challenging enforcement measures depends on territorial jurisdiction and is not restricted by the RDB Act's pecuniary threshold. Until rules prescribe a fee under the securitisation statute, an ad valorem fee under the DRT Procedure Rules is not payable; applications remain maintainable on the specified fixed fee. Banks and financial institutions must elect between parallel recovery proceedings. Possession measures under section 13(4) permit symbolic possession only; physical dispossession requires the prescribed statutory process. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111043