https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301397 Appointment of a financial institution as operating agency under SICA did not extinguish its independent rights as a secured creditor, and no statutory bar prevented transfer of its non-performing assets; the borrower could not resist the assignment merely because the lender also had a rehabilitation role, and any grievance lay before BIFR. The borrower also could not compel acceptance of a belated higher settlement offer under Article 226, because the lender's acceptance of a completed auction bid was a bona fide commercial decision and the defaulting borrower had no equity to obstruct recovery or force last-minute settlement. The writ petition failed and interim protection was vacated. en-us Fri, 21 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Apr 2022 17:17:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301397 Appointment of a financial institution as operating agency under SICA did not extinguish its independent rights as a secured creditor, and no statutory bar prevented transfer of its non-performing assets; the borrower could not resist the assignment merely because the lender also had a rehabilitation role, and any grievance lay before BIFR. The borrower also could not compel acceptance of a belated higher settlement offer under Article 226, because the lender's acceptance of a completed auction bid was a bona fide commercial decision and the defaulting borrower had no equity to obstruct recovery or force last-minute settlement. The writ petition failed and interim protection was vacated. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 21 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301397