<?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>2006 (9) TMI 289 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111323</link>
    <description>The SARFAESI remedy may be invoked even when civil recovery suits are pending, because section 37 makes that remedy additional to other laws and the doctrine of election does not bar parallel recourse. A notice under section 13(2) is only a demand-cum-show-cause notice, so writ challenges at that stage are premature; objections must be considered first, and any later measures under section 13(4) can be challenged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17. The limitation objection also failed because the secured claim was found to be within time. Third-party purchasers and persons claiming under borrowers likewise could not maintain a writ challenge at the section 13(2) stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:32:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 289 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111323</link>
      <description>The SARFAESI remedy may be invoked even when civil recovery suits are pending, because section 37 makes that remedy additional to other laws and the doctrine of election does not bar parallel recourse. A notice under section 13(2) is only a demand-cum-show-cause notice, so writ challenges at that stage are premature; objections must be considered first, and any later measures under section 13(4) can be challenged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17. The limitation objection also failed because the secured claim was found to be within time. Third-party purchasers and persons claiming under borrowers likewise could not maintain a writ challenge at the section 13(2) stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111323</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>