https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332561 Article 226 interference was declined against SARFAESI recovery measures where the borrowers had remained in prolonged default, the account had been classified as a non-performing asset, and the bank had already taken statutory measures under Section 13 after issuing demand notice. The Court treated the writ remedy as discretionary, noted that repeated ities to regularise the account had been given, and found no satisfactory explanation for the default or basis to compel acceptance of one-time settlement terms. As the loan transaction was a private financial arrangement without an enforceable public law element, the challenge to the proposed sale of the secured asset was rejected and the bank was allowed to proceed in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:26:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332561 Article 226 interference was declined against SARFAESI recovery measures where the borrowers had remained in prolonged default, the account had been classified as a non-performing asset, and the bank had already taken statutory measures under Section 13 after issuing demand notice. The Court treated the writ remedy as discretionary, noted that repeated ities to regularise the account had been given, and found no satisfactory explanation for the default or basis to compel acceptance of one-time settlement terms. As the loan transaction was a private financial arrangement without an enforceable public law element, the challenge to the proposed sale of the secured asset was rejected and the bank was allowed to proceed in accordance with law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332561