<?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>2024 (8) TMI 196 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756492</link>
    <description>The Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises notified on 29 May 2015 was mandatory and had to be followed before an MSME account was classified as a non-performing asset. The instructions under the MSMED Act and the Reserve Bank&#039;s directions under the Banking Regulation Act were stated to have statutory force, requiring banks to identify incipient stress and undertake the prescribed revival process at the pre-NPA stage. The availability of SARFAESI enforcement did not override these prior obligations, because the Framework operated before recovery action could begin. The contrary view of the High Court was stated to be incorrect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2024 07:04:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=762837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 196 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756492</link>
      <description>The Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises notified on 29 May 2015 was mandatory and had to be followed before an MSME account was classified as a non-performing asset. The instructions under the MSMED Act and the Reserve Bank&#039;s directions under the Banking Regulation Act were stated to have statutory force, requiring banks to identify incipient stress and undertake the prescribed revival process at the pre-NPA stage. The availability of SARFAESI enforcement did not override these prior obligations, because the Framework operated before recovery action could begin. The contrary view of the High Court was stated to be incorrect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>