https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214998 A Delhi HC note on SARFAESI enforcement explains that a limitation challenge failed prima facie because the cause of action arose on recall of the loan facilities and recovery steps had already been initiated within time, with SARFAESI treated as an independent remedy. It further notes that pending rehabilitation proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies Act did not, by themselves, bar secured creditors from proceeding under the 2002 Act. The Court also declined to disturb interim conditions imposed by the Tribunal on the issue of another secured creditor's consent, leaving the matter for final determination by the statutory forum. en-us Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Jun 2012 07:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214998 A Delhi HC note on SARFAESI enforcement explains that a limitation challenge failed prima facie because the cause of action arose on recall of the loan facilities and recovery steps had already been initiated within time, with SARFAESI treated as an independent remedy. It further notes that pending rehabilitation proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies Act did not, by themselves, bar secured creditors from proceeding under the 2002 Act. The Court also declined to disturb interim conditions imposed by the Tribunal on the issue of another secured creditor's consent, leaving the matter for final determination by the statutory forum. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214998