<?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>1998 (4) TMI 492 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105094</link>
    <description>Mortgage-backed claims were treated as recoverable &quot;debt&quot; under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, so the Debt Recovery Tribunal could entertain substantive mortgage relief in section 19 proceedings, including transferred matters under section 31. The Tribunal was said to apply substantive mortgage law under the Transfer of Property Act while proceeding summarily under section 22, without being controlled by the Code of Civil Procedure. Territorial jurisdiction was held to depend on section 19(1)(a) to (c), based on residence, business, or part of the cause of action, rather than the situs of immovable property under section 16 CPC; an ad interim ex parte order was also held unsustainable to the extent challenged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:51:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142133" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 492 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105094</link>
      <description>Mortgage-backed claims were treated as recoverable &quot;debt&quot; under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, so the Debt Recovery Tribunal could entertain substantive mortgage relief in section 19 proceedings, including transferred matters under section 31. The Tribunal was said to apply substantive mortgage law under the Transfer of Property Act while proceeding summarily under section 22, without being controlled by the Code of Civil Procedure. Territorial jurisdiction was held to depend on section 19(1)(a) to (c), based on residence, business, or part of the cause of action, rather than the situs of immovable property under section 16 CPC; an ad interim ex parte order was also held unsustainable to the extent challenged.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105094</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>