<?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>2014 (2) TMI 1333 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272868</link>
    <description>The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 applies to pre-existing loan transactions where the creditor is later brought within the statutory definition of secured creditor or financial institution. The Act was treated as remedial enforcement machinery, not as creating a new substantive right in the debt itself; the later notification merely enabled invocation of the statutory recovery framework from that date. Applying the distinction between substantive rights and procedural remedy, the later-notified institution was held entitled to proceed under the Act for earlier advances, and the contrary view was overruled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2018 17:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=521183" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 1333 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272868</link>
      <description>The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 applies to pre-existing loan transactions where the creditor is later brought within the statutory definition of secured creditor or financial institution. The Act was treated as remedial enforcement machinery, not as creating a new substantive right in the debt itself; the later notification merely enabled invocation of the statutory recovery framework from that date. Applying the distinction between substantive rights and procedural remedy, the later-notified institution was held entitled to proceed under the Act for earlier advances, and the contrary view was overruled.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272868</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>