https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336502 Pendency of arbitration proceedings did not prevent a secured creditor from invoking the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The statutory recovery remedy was treated as independent of any award, decree or certificate, and Section 37 was read as making it cumulative with other laws. The principle of election of remedies was held inapplicable because the Act provides an additional, non-repugnant mode of enforcement. Borrowers retained the right to challenge the measures under Section 17 of the Act. The measures under the Act were therefore upheld notwithstanding the pending arbitration. en-us Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:13:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336502 Pendency of arbitration proceedings did not prevent a secured creditor from invoking the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The statutory recovery remedy was treated as independent of any award, decree or certificate, and Section 37 was read as making it cumulative with other laws. The principle of election of remedies was held inapplicable because the Act provides an additional, non-repugnant mode of enforcement. Borrowers retained the right to challenge the measures under Section 17 of the Act. The measures under the Act were therefore upheld notwithstanding the pending arbitration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336502