<?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>2017 (10) TMI 1233 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350078</link>
    <description>The remedies under the securitisation law and the debt recovery law are cumulative, so a secured creditor is not barred from proceeding under SARFAESI merely because it has filed an application under the debt recovery statute. RBI settlement guidelines must be shown to have been specifically breached before writ relief can be granted, and a court will not compel acceptance of a one-time settlement where the borrower failed to satisfy the payment conditions. Non-production of title deeds kept in the Tribunal&#039;s custody was not fatal because inspection mechanisms existed under the Tribunal rules. The borrower had no enforceable right to proportionate release of mortgaged assets or to insist on private treaty sale absent a bona fide buyer and compliance with settlement terms.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Oct 2017 10:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494108" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 1233 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350078</link>
      <description>The remedies under the securitisation law and the debt recovery law are cumulative, so a secured creditor is not barred from proceeding under SARFAESI merely because it has filed an application under the debt recovery statute. RBI settlement guidelines must be shown to have been specifically breached before writ relief can be granted, and a court will not compel acceptance of a one-time settlement where the borrower failed to satisfy the payment conditions. Non-production of title deeds kept in the Tribunal&#039;s custody was not fatal because inspection mechanisms existed under the Tribunal rules. The borrower had no enforceable right to proportionate release of mortgaged assets or to insist on private treaty sale absent a bona fide buyer and compliance with settlement terms.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350078</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>