https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194915 Repeated challenge to recovery measures was treated as barred by res judicata and as an abuse of process because the same dispute had already been litigated and the later plea on BIFR pendency could have been raised earlier. The document further explains that Section 22 of SICA does not suspend recovery where the second proviso to Section 15(1) applies after assets are acquired under SARFAESI, and that the minimum-debt condition in the third proviso cannot be read into that bar. On that footing, any BIFR reference and registration made without jurisdiction are void, and SARFAESI proceedings may continue without BIFR consent. en-us Thu, 09 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Oct 2017 06:46:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194915 Repeated challenge to recovery measures was treated as barred by res judicata and as an abuse of process because the same dispute had already been litigated and the later plea on BIFR pendency could have been raised earlier. The document further explains that Section 22 of SICA does not suspend recovery where the second proviso to Section 15(1) applies after assets are acquired under SARFAESI, and that the minimum-debt condition in the third proviso cannot be read into that bar. On that footing, any BIFR reference and registration made without jurisdiction are void, and SARFAESI proceedings may continue without BIFR consent. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 09 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194915