https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114070 The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act, deeming it premature and not maintainable due to the petitioner's loan default. It rejected the argument regarding the stay of proceedings under section 22(1) of the SICA, emphasizing the Securitisation Act's overriding effect. The court found the respondents' compliance with section 13(3A) adequate, stating that no steps under section 13(4) had been taken, making the appeal premature. en-us Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114070 The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act, deeming it premature and not maintainable due to the petitioner's loan default. It rejected the argument regarding the stay of proceedings under section 22(1) of the SICA, emphasizing the Securitisation Act's overriding effect. The court found the respondents' compliance with section 13(3A) adequate, stating that no steps under section 13(4) had been taken, making the appeal premature. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114070