<?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>2023 (1) TMI 244 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432497</link>
    <description>Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act gives a secured creditor priority of payment over all other debts once the security interest is registered, and that specific later provision prevails on the question of recovery priority. Sections 15 to 23 of the MSMED Act create a mechanism for delayed payment, interest and adjudication before the Facilitation Council, but they do not confer an express priority over secured creditors&#039; dues. Authorities acting under Section 14 are confined to assisting possession and cannot decide inter se creditor claims; refusal to deliver possession on the basis of an MSMED recovery certificate was therefore beyond jurisdiction and unsustainable. The appeal was allowed and the High Court view was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=700933" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (1) TMI 244 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432497</link>
      <description>Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act gives a secured creditor priority of payment over all other debts once the security interest is registered, and that specific later provision prevails on the question of recovery priority. Sections 15 to 23 of the MSMED Act create a mechanism for delayed payment, interest and adjudication before the Facilitation Council, but they do not confer an express priority over secured creditors&#039; dues. Authorities acting under Section 14 are confined to assisting possession and cannot decide inter se creditor claims; refusal to deliver possession on the basis of an MSMED recovery certificate was therefore beyond jurisdiction and unsustainable. The appeal was allowed and the High Court view was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432497</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>