https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312167 Interference with a State Financial Corporation's recovery action under Section 29 is limited to cases of statutory violation, clear arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or mala fides. Where the borrower repeatedly defaulted, ignored notices, and declined concessions or restoration schemes, the court could not substitute its own view of the contractual interest rate, order fresh recalculation of dues, or require a general review of pending matters. The later line of authority on Section 29 therefore governed, and the earlier contrary approach was held inapplicable. The corporation's recovery action was upheld and the writ petition dismissed. en-us Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Feb 2024 15:03:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312167 Interference with a State Financial Corporation's recovery action under Section 29 is limited to cases of statutory violation, clear arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or mala fides. Where the borrower repeatedly defaulted, ignored notices, and declined concessions or restoration schemes, the court could not substitute its own view of the contractual interest rate, order fresh recalculation of dues, or require a general review of pending matters. The later line of authority on Section 29 therefore governed, and the earlier contrary approach was held inapplicable. The corporation's recovery action was upheld and the writ petition dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312167