https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336372 The securitisation and secured debt recovery framework was treated in pith and substance as a banking measure within Union legislative power, with incidental provisions on enforcement and jurisdiction traceable to banking and ancillary Union entries. The Court found that the Act did not in substance legislate on transfer of property, so the State law restricting transfers to non-permanent residents could not defeat Parliament's enactment, though the auction-sale rules preserved State law to the indicated extent. Challenges based on exclusion of Entry 11A and on Article 35A failed, and the Act was held applicable to Jammu & Kashmir. en-us Fri, 16 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Sep 2017 12:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336372 The securitisation and secured debt recovery framework was treated in pith and substance as a banking measure within Union legislative power, with incidental provisions on enforcement and jurisdiction traceable to banking and ancillary Union entries. The Court found that the Act did not in substance legislate on transfer of property, so the State law restricting transfers to non-permanent residents could not defeat Parliament's enactment, though the auction-sale rules preserved State law to the indicated extent. Challenges based on exclusion of Entry 11A and on Article 35A failed, and the Act was held applicable to Jammu & Kashmir. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336372