<?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>2021 (1) TMI 1142 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296955</link>
    <description>Pandemic-related restructuring or moratorium relief under RBI circulars was unavailable because the loan account did not satisfy the circulars&#039; eligibility conditions, including the relevant exposure limit. The account was treated as overdue beyond the permissible period, and the bank&#039;s system-based updation and interest entries were accepted as supporting the classification of the account as a non-performing asset from 28 February 2020. Writ interference was also declined because SARFAESI proceedings under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) were already underway and no exceptional ground such as arbitrariness or mala fides was shown to bypass the statutory remedy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2021 21:22:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=652547" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (1) TMI 1142 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296955</link>
      <description>Pandemic-related restructuring or moratorium relief under RBI circulars was unavailable because the loan account did not satisfy the circulars&#039; eligibility conditions, including the relevant exposure limit. The account was treated as overdue beyond the permissible period, and the bank&#039;s system-based updation and interest entries were accepted as supporting the classification of the account as a non-performing asset from 28 February 2020. Writ interference was also declined because SARFAESI proceedings under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) were already underway and no exceptional ground such as arbitrariness or mala fides was shown to bypass the statutory remedy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296955</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>