https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200163 The court held that a secured creditor can proceed under both the R.D.B. Act and the Securitisation Act simultaneously. It found the guarantee deed valid, rejecting the argument that absence of bank officials' signatures rendered it invalid. The court also determined that the action under the Securitisation Act was within the limitation period. Emphasizing the objective of the Securitisation Act for speedy recovery, the court upheld the respondent bank's right to pursue remedies under both acts, denying the petitioners' request for interim relief. en-us Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:31:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200163 The court held that a secured creditor can proceed under both the R.D.B. Act and the Securitisation Act simultaneously. It found the guarantee deed valid, rejecting the argument that absence of bank officials' signatures rendered it invalid. The court also determined that the action under the Securitisation Act was within the limitation period. Emphasizing the objective of the Securitisation Act for speedy recovery, the court upheld the respondent bank's right to pursue remedies under both acts, denying the petitioners' request for interim relief. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200163