<?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>2016 (1) TMI 1 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270209</link>
    <description>A debenture trustee holding a mortgage and charge created for debentures subscribed by banks or a financial institution is treated as a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act and may enforce the security as the holder of the security interest. The distinction drawn by the statute between banks and financial institutions and other debenture holders was held to have a rational nexus with speedy recovery of non-performing assets and did not offend Article 14. Notice under Section 13(2), possession under Section 13(4), and Magistrate assistance under Section 14 were described as valid enforcement steps within the statutory scheme. An alternate remedy under Section 17 existed, but the merits were examined and the writ challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2017 16:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=411390" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 1 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270209</link>
      <description>A debenture trustee holding a mortgage and charge created for debentures subscribed by banks or a financial institution is treated as a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act and may enforce the security as the holder of the security interest. The distinction drawn by the statute between banks and financial institutions and other debenture holders was held to have a rational nexus with speedy recovery of non-performing assets and did not offend Article 14. Notice under Section 13(2), possession under Section 13(4), and Magistrate assistance under Section 14 were described as valid enforcement steps within the statutory scheme. An alternate remedy under Section 17 existed, but the merits were examined and the writ challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>