<?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>2007 (9) TMI 697 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198566</link>
    <description>A co-operative bank could be notified as a &quot;bank&quot; under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, because the Act uses a broad definition of bank and allows the Central Government to specify additional banks by notification. The Act also provides an independent and additional recovery remedy, operating notwithstanding the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The challenge based on the Banking Regulation Act and legislative competence was rejected, applying the presumption of constitutionality and the pith and substance doctrine. The recovery measures under the Act were therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Feb 2018 10:30:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=507501" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 697 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198566</link>
      <description>A co-operative bank could be notified as a &quot;bank&quot; under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, because the Act uses a broad definition of bank and allows the Central Government to specify additional banks by notification. The Act also provides an independent and additional recovery remedy, operating notwithstanding the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The challenge based on the Banking Regulation Act and legislative competence was rejected, applying the presumption of constitutionality and the pith and substance doctrine. The recovery measures under the Act were therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198566</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>