<?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>2025 (7) TMI 141 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774073</link>
    <description>A stressed loan account may be assigned to an asset reconstruction company under the applicable RBI framework without the borrower&#039;s consent. The court noted that transfer of exposures classified as NPA or SMA is permitted, that prior intimation to the borrower was sufficient, and that allegations of breach of natural justice therefore failed. It also reiterated that assignment of debt is a commercial matter and writ interference lies only on proof of statutory breach, unfairness, or mala fides, none being shown. The claim based on the Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme was rejected because the scheme did not create an enforceable right to compel disbursal in the manner sought.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 08:34:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=833410" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 141 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774073</link>
      <description>A stressed loan account may be assigned to an asset reconstruction company under the applicable RBI framework without the borrower&#039;s consent. The court noted that transfer of exposures classified as NPA or SMA is permitted, that prior intimation to the borrower was sufficient, and that allegations of breach of natural justice therefore failed. It also reiterated that assignment of debt is a commercial matter and writ interference lies only on proof of statutory breach, unfairness, or mala fides, none being shown. The claim based on the Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme was rejected because the scheme did not create an enforceable right to compel disbursal in the manner sought.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774073</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>