<?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>2010 (6) TMI 855 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195291</link>
    <description>A writ petition challenging a notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was found not maintainable because the Act provided an alternate and efficacious remedy. The Court noted that the petitioners could pursue the statutory mechanisms under sections 13(3) and 13(3A), where they could raise objections and present any settlement proposal before the assignee. In view of those remedies, writ interference was declined and the petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:39:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (6) TMI 855 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195291</link>
      <description>A writ petition challenging a notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was found not maintainable because the Act provided an alternate and efficacious remedy. The Court noted that the petitioners could pursue the statutory mechanisms under sections 13(3) and 13(3A), where they could raise objections and present any settlement proposal before the assignee. In view of those remedies, writ interference was declined and the petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>