<?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>2009 (10) TMI 531 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113973</link>
    <description>Under the SARFAESI framework, a notice under section 13(2) is a statutory precondition for coercive action under section 13(4), but the creditor is not required to move immediately or within any fixed timetable. The statute permits commercial discretion in choosing among enforcement measures such as sale, assignment, lease, or management takeover, and no implied time limit can be read into the provision. Delay by itself does not invalidate the enforcement notice, particularly where the borrower contributed to the lapse. The analysis also rejects the view that recovery must be confined to civil court proceedings, given the statutory enforcement scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 531 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113973</link>
      <description>Under the SARFAESI framework, a notice under section 13(2) is a statutory precondition for coercive action under section 13(4), but the creditor is not required to move immediately or within any fixed timetable. The statute permits commercial discretion in choosing among enforcement measures such as sale, assignment, lease, or management takeover, and no implied time limit can be read into the provision. Delay by itself does not invalidate the enforcement notice, particularly where the borrower contributed to the lapse. The analysis also rejects the view that recovery must be confined to civil court proceedings, given the statutory enforcement scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113973</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>