<?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>2020 (12) TMI 749 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401950</link>
    <description>RBI COVID-19 circulars and policy guidelines were treated as temporary relief measures for viable borrowers affected by the pandemic, not as a basis to reopen pre-existing defaults or completed enforcement steps under SARFAESI. Where default had begun before the pandemic, the account had already become an NPA, and secured creditor action including DRT proceedings had progressed, the one-time settlement could not be invalidated merely because payment conditions were not met. Writ relief was also considered unavailable where statutory remedies under the SARFAESI framework had already been invoked, since interference is ordinarily not warranted in contractual and enforcement disputes with an efficacious alternative remedy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2021 11:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=630781" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 749 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401950</link>
      <description>RBI COVID-19 circulars and policy guidelines were treated as temporary relief measures for viable borrowers affected by the pandemic, not as a basis to reopen pre-existing defaults or completed enforcement steps under SARFAESI. Where default had begun before the pandemic, the account had already become an NPA, and secured creditor action including DRT proceedings had progressed, the one-time settlement could not be invalidated merely because payment conditions were not met. Writ relief was also considered unavailable where statutory remedies under the SARFAESI framework had already been invoked, since interference is ordinarily not warranted in contractual and enforcement disputes with an efficacious alternative remedy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>