https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111388 The securitisation remedy under the 2002 Act was described as an additional, independent mode of enforcement that operates alongside recovery proceedings under the 1993 Act, so pending DRT proceedings did not require prior withdrawal before recourse to section 13. The statutory scheme and enforcement rules were read as permitting the secured creditor to take actual possession of immovable secured assets, subject to the borrower's remedy under section 17. The 2004 removal-of-difficulties order was upheld as a valid interim basis for levying ad valorem court fee on section 17(1) applications until rules were framed under the 2002 Act. en-us Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Sep 2025 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111388 The securitisation remedy under the 2002 Act was described as an additional, independent mode of enforcement that operates alongside recovery proceedings under the 1993 Act, so pending DRT proceedings did not require prior withdrawal before recourse to section 13. The statutory scheme and enforcement rules were read as permitting the secured creditor to take actual possession of immovable secured assets, subject to the borrower's remedy under section 17. The 2004 removal-of-difficulties order was upheld as a valid interim basis for levying ad valorem court fee on section 17(1) applications until rules were framed under the 2002 Act. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111388