<?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>2006 (12) TMI 544 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198773</link>
    <description>Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 permits a secured creditor to seek magistrate assistance for taking possession of secured assets, and the reference to the magistrate must be read with the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On that construction, the Chief Judicial Magistrate functions as the district-level equivalent, while the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is the corresponding authority in metropolitan areas. A return of the application on the premise that only the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate could entertain it was therefore based on a misconception, and the return order was liable to be set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2018 18:23:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508173" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 544 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198773</link>
      <description>Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 permits a secured creditor to seek magistrate assistance for taking possession of secured assets, and the reference to the magistrate must be read with the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On that construction, the Chief Judicial Magistrate functions as the district-level equivalent, while the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is the corresponding authority in metropolitan areas. A return of the application on the premise that only the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate could entertain it was therefore based on a misconception, and the return order was liable to be set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198773</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>