<?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>SARFAESI action on unsecured pre-Act loan in constitutionally protected areas: Art 371A trumps s35; appeal dismissed</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95149</link>
    <description>Whether SARFAESI measures could be invoked against a borrower in Nagaland and in the absence of any mortgage/security interest was determined by holding that the Act&#039;s overriding clause in s.35 cannot prevail over the special constitutional protection under Art. 371A, and that SARFAESI enforcement presupposes creation of a security interest, which was undisputedly absent. Given the loan agreement pre-dated SARFAESI&#039;s commencement, invocation required heightened scrutiny, and the creditor&#039;s action was held without jurisdiction; consequently, the borrower could not be relegated to the DRT remedy under s.17. The writ interference was upheld and the appeal was dismissed - SC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:02:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:02:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=872401" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>SARFAESI action on unsecured pre-Act loan in constitutionally protected areas: Art 371A trumps s35; appeal dismissed</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95149</link>
      <description>Whether SARFAESI measures could be invoked against a borrower in Nagaland and in the absence of any mortgage/security interest was determined by holding that the Act&#039;s overriding clause in s.35 cannot prevail over the special constitutional protection under Art. 371A, and that SARFAESI enforcement presupposes creation of a security interest, which was undisputedly absent. Given the loan agreement pre-dated SARFAESI&#039;s commencement, invocation required heightened scrutiny, and the creditor&#039;s action was held without jurisdiction; consequently, the borrower could not be relegated to the DRT remedy under s.17. The writ interference was upheld and the appeal was dismissed - SC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:02:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95149</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>