MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. K. Singh, J
Misons Leather Ltd. v. Canara Bank rep. by its Chief Manager
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. constitutional validity of provisions under the act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. amendments to s.17 restrict borrowers' rights. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. access to debt recovery tribunal remains essential. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments presented by counsel. (Para 7) |
| 5. clarifying the limitations and rights in s.17. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. final decision to dismiss the petitions. (Para 12) |
1. The constitutional validity of provisions of S.17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002 as amended by the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment Act) Ordinance, 2004 (Act 30 of 2004) is challenged in these writ petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 , (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been enacted to regulate securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest and for matters connected thereto. The Act enables the banks and financial institutions to realise long - term assets, manage problems of liquidity, asset liability mis - match and imp
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.