Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - The amended definition of "Non-Performing Asset" (NPA) under Section 2(1)(o) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and its constitutional validity to classify NPAs by different regulators/guidelines was upheld. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Court held that defining every expression in a statute is not necessary; courts may expound undefined terms; delegation of norm-setting for NPA classification is not an essential legislative function. (!) (!) - RBI guidelines for asset classification and the role of regulators/authorities in classifying NPAs were recognized as permissible, with the amendment enabling different regulators to prescribe norms. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Gujarat High Court’s concerns about class legislation and excessive delegation were rejected; the amended provision is valid, and diverging objects vs. tenor of the Act does not render it unconstitutional. (!) (!) (!) - The Act requires a creditor to classify a borrower’s account as NPA before invoking Section 13, and Section 13(3A) obligates consideration of borrower representations with reasons for non-acceptance. (!) (!) - The decision reiterates that Section 13(4) permits creditors to recover via possession/management transfer with safeguards and depends on classification as NPA and other factors. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment references Mardia Chemicals and confirms the constitutional validity of most Act provisions except previously ultra vires Section 17(2) in a related context, while upholding amended NPA definitions. (!) (!) (!) - Costs are awarded to creditors; petitions and appeals dismissed. (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?