https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283791 A securitisation or reconstruction company that had taken an earlier assignment of a debt could not seek substitution in pending recovery proceedings while a later arrangement to assign the same dues to a third party remained operative. The Court held that the petitioner could not suppress the subsequent arrangement and simultaneously rely on the earlier assignment to continue proceedings under the statutory scheme. Because the later arrangement was inconsistent with the asserted right, the claim for substitution was not maintainable. The writ petition challenging the recovery fora's orders therefore failed and was dismissed. en-us Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Oct 2019 07:52:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283791 A securitisation or reconstruction company that had taken an earlier assignment of a debt could not seek substitution in pending recovery proceedings while a later arrangement to assign the same dues to a third party remained operative. The Court held that the petitioner could not suppress the subsequent arrangement and simultaneously rely on the earlier assignment to continue proceedings under the statutory scheme. Because the later arrangement was inconsistent with the asserted right, the claim for substitution was not maintainable. The writ petition challenging the recovery fora's orders therefore failed and was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283791