<?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>2018 (3) TMI 275 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356572</link>
    <description>Writ jurisdiction was held available despite an alternate remedy under the SARFAESI framework where the challenge raised alleged procedural non-compliance, absence of notice to persons in possession, and natural justice concerns. The Court also found the impugned SARFAESI notice and consequential coercive action unsustainable against flat purchasers claiming to be bona fide purchasers without notice, in light of the alleged delay in mortgage registration, disclosure issues, escrow controversy, and failure to notify occupants before action. The petitions succeeded to the extent of quashing the impugned action, while leaving the secured creditor free to proceed in accordance with law and requiring fresh examination by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2018 07:02:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511699" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 275 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356572</link>
      <description>Writ jurisdiction was held available despite an alternate remedy under the SARFAESI framework where the challenge raised alleged procedural non-compliance, absence of notice to persons in possession, and natural justice concerns. The Court also found the impugned SARFAESI notice and consequential coercive action unsustainable against flat purchasers claiming to be bona fide purchasers without notice, in light of the alleged delay in mortgage registration, disclosure issues, escrow controversy, and failure to notify occupants before action. The petitions succeeded to the extent of quashing the impugned action, while leaving the secured creditor free to proceed in accordance with law and requiring fresh examination by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356572</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>