<?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>2013 (3) TMI 776 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197573</link>
    <description>A borrower challenging a demand notice under the SARFAESI Act must first invoke the statutory objection procedure under section 13(3A) before seeking writ relief against a notice issued under section 13(2). The objection mechanism is intended to let the borrower raise grounds including alleged non-compliance with RBI guidelines and incorrect classification of the account as a non-performing asset. Jurisdictional objections to the authorised officer&#039;s notice can also be raised within that statutory response, and the court should not interfere at that stage. On that basis, writ intervention is premature and the notice challenge is not maintainable until the borrower exhausts the section 13(3A) remedy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:37:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 776 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197573</link>
      <description>A borrower challenging a demand notice under the SARFAESI Act must first invoke the statutory objection procedure under section 13(3A) before seeking writ relief against a notice issued under section 13(2). The objection mechanism is intended to let the borrower raise grounds including alleged non-compliance with RBI guidelines and incorrect classification of the account as a non-performing asset. Jurisdictional objections to the authorised officer&#039;s notice can also be raised within that statutory response, and the court should not interfere at that stage. On that basis, writ intervention is premature and the notice challenge is not maintainable until the borrower exhausts the section 13(3A) remedy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>