https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114062 A secured creditor governed by the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 may also invoke the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as an additional mode of enforcement. The Court treated the securitisation statute as cumulative, not in derogation of other laws, and held that action under section 13(4) could proceed notwithstanding section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. It further held that prior resort to the State Financial Corporations Act did not trigger the doctrine of election, because the two statutes provide distinct and not truly inconsistent remedies. en-us Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 May 2012 16:53:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114062 A secured creditor governed by the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 may also invoke the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as an additional mode of enforcement. The Court treated the securitisation statute as cumulative, not in derogation of other laws, and held that action under section 13(4) could proceed notwithstanding section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. It further held that prior resort to the State Financial Corporations Act did not trigger the doctrine of election, because the two statutes provide distinct and not truly inconsistent remedies. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114062