<?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>1999 (8) TMI 912 - STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108077</link>
    <description>Certificates issued to a company under the National Savings Certificates (VIII Issue) Rules, 1989, as amended from 1-4-1995, were contrary to the governing rules and therefore void ab initio, with no enforceable legal right arising from their issue. The respondent was not deficient in service in asking for surrender of the certificates and refund of the deposited principal, because a void issuance could not create a valid contractual or statutory entitlement. Estoppel could not be invoked to validate an act prohibited by mandatory rules. Even so, because the respondent retained the appellant&#039;s funds for a substantial period, equitable restitution with reasonable interest was warranted on surrender of the original certificates.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 21 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145094" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 912 - STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108077</link>
      <description>Certificates issued to a company under the National Savings Certificates (VIII Issue) Rules, 1989, as amended from 1-4-1995, were contrary to the governing rules and therefore void ab initio, with no enforceable legal right arising from their issue. The respondent was not deficient in service in asking for surrender of the certificates and refund of the deposited principal, because a void issuance could not create a valid contractual or statutory entitlement. Estoppel could not be invoked to validate an act prohibited by mandatory rules. Even so, because the respondent retained the appellant&#039;s funds for a substantial period, equitable restitution with reasonable interest was warranted on surrender of the original certificates.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 21 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108077</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>