Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2010 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (11) TMI 847 - KERALA HIGH COURTwhether there is any guidance to be collected from the Act itself, its object and its provisions, in the light of the surrounding circumstances which made the legislation necessary, taken in conjunction with well known facts of which the court might take judicial notice? Held that:- Unless the provisions in the BR Act contains any specific restrictions, the 2nd respondent could not be prevented from engaging in any such activity. Yet another contention is that the provisions contained in the BR Act expressly prohibits from engaging any trading or buying and selling. In view of the findings arrived as above, but not agreeable with the contention that the acquisition of the financial assets through transfer by itself will come within the purview of, trading or buying or selling, as contemplated under section 8 of the BR Act. Therefore the transfer of secured assets of the petitioner company by ARCIL to the 2nd respondent and the subsequent transfer by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent are not in any manner prohibited and it is not contrary to any of the provisions contained under the SARFAESI Act or under the RDB Act or under the BR Act. These writ petitions deserve no merit. Challenge raised against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act on the ground that, assignment of debts and underlying securities of the petitioner company by M/s. ARCIL to the 2nd respondent and the subsequent assignment by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent in WP(C).27021/10 [3rd respondent in WP(C).25000/10] is illegal and invalid, is hereby negatived. I hold that those transactions are legal and valid under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, RDB Act and BR Act, and it is not violative of the guidelines or norms prescribed by the RBI. Accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed.
|