https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366453 Persons claiming independent title were not required to proceed under the SARFAESI Act where they disputed the very applicability of the secured creditor's measures and asserted that the properties were not secured assets. Section 17(1) presupposes a valid borrower-secured creditor relationship and a valid security interest; when rival title claims and the true nature of the property require adjudication, the dispute does not fit a securitisation application. In that situation, the civil court's jurisdiction is not excluded under Section 34, and the Tribunal was not an efficacious forum for resolving title and property-status questions. The claimants could therefore invoke the competent civil court. en-us Fri, 23 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Sep 2018 08:13:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366453 Persons claiming independent title were not required to proceed under the SARFAESI Act where they disputed the very applicability of the secured creditor's measures and asserted that the properties were not secured assets. Section 17(1) presupposes a valid borrower-secured creditor relationship and a valid security interest; when rival title claims and the true nature of the property require adjudication, the dispute does not fit a securitisation application. In that situation, the civil court's jurisdiction is not excluded under Section 34, and the Tribunal was not an efficacious forum for resolving title and property-status questions. The claimants could therefore invoke the competent civil court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366453