<?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>2003 (1) TMI 518 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108355</link>
    <description>Registrar of the Debts Recovery Tribunal may scrutinise, register and permit rectification of defects in applications, but cannot exercise judicial power to reject or finally decide an interlocutory impleading request unless that authority is expressly conferred by statute or rules. The procedural framework gives the Registrar ministerial functions only, and no valid delegation of adjudicatory power was established. Although procedural irregularity and denial of a fair opportunity were identified, the challenged orders were not set aside because the applicants were not debtors, sureties or guarantors, and their sale-agreement and title claims could be pursued through appropriate remedies. The proceedings were disposed of with liberty to seek remedies available in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:26:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145372" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 518 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108355</link>
      <description>Registrar of the Debts Recovery Tribunal may scrutinise, register and permit rectification of defects in applications, but cannot exercise judicial power to reject or finally decide an interlocutory impleading request unless that authority is expressly conferred by statute or rules. The procedural framework gives the Registrar ministerial functions only, and no valid delegation of adjudicatory power was established. Although procedural irregularity and denial of a fair opportunity were identified, the challenged orders were not set aside because the applicants were not debtors, sureties or guarantors, and their sale-agreement and title claims could be pursued through appropriate remedies. The proceedings were disposed of with liberty to seek remedies available in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108355</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>