https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387865 Under the SARFAESI Act, a single application under section 17 is maintainable where multiple measures under section 13(4) relate to different secured assets but arise from the same secured debt. Jurisdiction under section 17(1A) is governed by the disjunctive connecting factors in the statute, yet the remedy remains debt-centred and focuses on the composite recovery action rather than the location of each asset. The Court held that section 14 does not make the situs of the secured asset the controlling criterion for original jurisdiction under section 17, and requiring separate applications would create unnecessary multiplicity and duplicate fee liability. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for decision on merits. en-us Wed, 11 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Nov 2019 06:32:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387865 Under the SARFAESI Act, a single application under section 17 is maintainable where multiple measures under section 13(4) relate to different secured assets but arise from the same secured debt. Jurisdiction under section 17(1A) is governed by the disjunctive connecting factors in the statute, yet the remedy remains debt-centred and focuses on the composite recovery action rather than the location of each asset. The Court held that section 14 does not make the situs of the secured asset the controlling criterion for original jurisdiction under section 17, and requiring separate applications would create unnecessary multiplicity and duplicate fee liability. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for decision on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387865