https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111204 Insertion of the proviso to section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 does not make Debts Recovery Tribunal permission a condition precedent for invoking the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The proviso is limited to permitting withdrawal of a pending recovery application, with the Tribunal empowered only to grant or refuse that withdrawal. Section 37 of the Securitisation Act confirms that securitisation is an additional remedy, not a substitute excluded by the pending recovery proceedings. The parallel operation of both statutes means pendency before the Tribunal does not bar action under section 13 of the Securitisation Act. en-us Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111204 Insertion of the proviso to section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 does not make Debts Recovery Tribunal permission a condition precedent for invoking the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The proviso is limited to permitting withdrawal of a pending recovery application, with the Tribunal empowered only to grant or refuse that withdrawal. Section 37 of the Securitisation Act confirms that securitisation is an additional remedy, not a substitute excluded by the pending recovery proceedings. The parallel operation of both statutes means pendency before the Tribunal does not bar action under section 13 of the Securitisation Act. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111204