https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198972 The Securitisation Act was held to extend to co-operative banks through the statutory definition of "bank" and the relevant notification, and the challenge on arbitrariness under Article 14 failed because Section 17 provides an effective post-measure remedy and the secured creditor must consider objections. A Section 13 notice was not invalid merely because it did not state the exact final quantified debt, since the Act is designed to enforce security interests rather than adjudicate the debt. The Court also held that Parliament had legislative competence on the banking field, the Act could operate alongside the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and writ petitions against co-operative banks were not maintainable. en-us Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 16:10:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198972 The Securitisation Act was held to extend to co-operative banks through the statutory definition of "bank" and the relevant notification, and the challenge on arbitrariness under Article 14 failed because Section 17 provides an effective post-measure remedy and the secured creditor must consider objections. A Section 13 notice was not invalid merely because it did not state the exact final quantified debt, since the Act is designed to enforce security interests rather than adjudicate the debt. The Court also held that Parliament had legislative competence on the banking field, the Act could operate alongside the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and writ petitions against co-operative banks were not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198972