Based on the provided legal document, the following key points are relevant:

1. The SARFAESI Act cannot be applied retroactively; it only applies to security interests created after its enactment. Since the loan agreement was executed prior to the SARFAESI Act becoming operational, the Act's provisions were not applicable at the time of the initial agreement (!) (!) .

2. A security interest, such as a mortgage or hypothecation, must be created in favor of the secured creditor for the SARFAESI Act to be invoked. In this case, no such security interest was established by the Corporation over the properties of the Company or the Council, rendering the invocation of the SARFAESI Act without jurisdiction (!) (!) .

3. The agreement between the Company and the Corporation included a deed of guarantee by the Model Village Council, which guaranteed repayment but did not create any security interest in the properties. Therefore, the Corporation lacked the authority to proceed under the SARFAESI Act against the Company based solely on this guarantee (!) (!) .

4. The special constitutional provisions applicable to Nagaland, specifically Article 371A, restrict the application of certain laws, including the SARFAESI Act, unless explicitly authorized by the State Legislative Assembly. Although the SARFAESI Act was later implemented in Nagaland, this was well after the loan was granted, and the Act's retrospective application is not permissible (!) (!) .

5. The notification issued in 2021, which allowed the implementation of the SARFAESI Act in Nagaland, came into effect many years after the loan agreement and the initial disbursement. This indicates that the Act was not applicable at the time of the loan or the subsequent recovery actions (!) .

6. The law requires that for the SARFAESI Act to be invoked, there must be a present, actionable debt, and the security interest must be properly created and enforceable. Since these conditions were not met, the actions taken by the Corporation under the SARFAESI Act were deemed invalid (!) (!) .

7. The law also emphasizes that in the absence of a security agreement creating a security interest, the Corporation cannot invoke the SARFAESI Act and must pursue remedies through other legal channels, such as recovery proceedings under different statutes or laws (!) (!) .

8. The Court upheld the decision of the High Court, which found that the Corporation's actions were without jurisdiction due to the lack of a security interest, and dismissed the appeal accordingly (!) .

In summary, the application of the SARFAESI Act in this case was invalid because no security interest was created under the law at the relevant time, and the constitutional provisions specific to Nagaland restrict its retroactive application. The Corporation is therefore required to seek remedies through appropriate legal procedures outside of the SARFAESI framework.