<?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 (11) TMI 1199 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280839</link>
    <description>A sale of secured assets under the SARFAESI Act, when the mortgaged properties belonged to private guarantors and not to the company in liquidation, fell outside the Company Court&#039;s jurisdiction; challenges to measures under Section 13 had to be taken before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Sections 531, 531A and 537 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not invalidate the SARFAESI sale, because the SARFAESI enforcement scheme, including its non-court intervention mechanism and vesting effect, prevails to the extent of inconsistency. Writ petitions based on disputed facts about valuation, notice, possession, encumbrances and loan adjustment were not maintainable on an incomplete record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2019 06:32:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=572282" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 1199 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280839</link>
      <description>A sale of secured assets under the SARFAESI Act, when the mortgaged properties belonged to private guarantors and not to the company in liquidation, fell outside the Company Court&#039;s jurisdiction; challenges to measures under Section 13 had to be taken before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Sections 531, 531A and 537 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not invalidate the SARFAESI sale, because the SARFAESI enforcement scheme, including its non-court intervention mechanism and vesting effect, prevails to the extent of inconsistency. Writ petitions based on disputed facts about valuation, notice, possession, encumbrances and loan adjustment were not maintainable on an incomplete record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280839</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>