<?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 (11) TMI 707 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761721</link>
    <description>Asset classification must be assessed borrower-wise rather than facility-wise when determining whether an account has become a non-performing asset. On the facts discussed, the borrower&#039;s cash credit account remained irregular and overdrawn, the term loan remained unpaid under the revised schedule, and the borrower did not rebut the material showing default; the account was therefore treated as non-performing. The transfer of the stressed exposure to an asset reconstruction company was also held valid under the SARFAESI framework, since the asset remained stressed or non-performing on the date of sale and no breach of binding regulatory directions was shown. The writ challenge to the sale process accordingly failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Nov 2024 08:38:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=778054" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 707 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761721</link>
      <description>Asset classification must be assessed borrower-wise rather than facility-wise when determining whether an account has become a non-performing asset. On the facts discussed, the borrower&#039;s cash credit account remained irregular and overdrawn, the term loan remained unpaid under the revised schedule, and the borrower did not rebut the material showing default; the account was therefore treated as non-performing. The transfer of the stressed exposure to an asset reconstruction company was also held valid under the SARFAESI framework, since the asset remained stressed or non-performing on the date of sale and no breach of binding regulatory directions was shown. The writ challenge to the sale process accordingly failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761721</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>