<?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>2002 (3) TMI 886 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109684</link>
    <description>The State Financial Corporations Act provides distinct recovery mechanisms: section 31 enables specified reliefs through the District Judge, while section 32G permits recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue. Because section 32G operates &quot;without prejudice to any other mode of recovery,&quot; it is additional to, not a substitute for, other statutory remedies. Prior proceedings under section 31 did not finally determine the surety&#039;s liability, as that provision then did not authorise enforcement against sureties. In that setting, resort to section 32G against the surety was not barred merely because the corporation had earlier proceeded under section 31 against the industrial concern.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:14:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146701" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 886 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109684</link>
      <description>The State Financial Corporations Act provides distinct recovery mechanisms: section 31 enables specified reliefs through the District Judge, while section 32G permits recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue. Because section 32G operates &quot;without prejudice to any other mode of recovery,&quot; it is additional to, not a substitute for, other statutory remedies. Prior proceedings under section 31 did not finally determine the surety&#039;s liability, as that provision then did not authorise enforcement against sureties. In that setting, resort to section 32G against the surety was not barred merely because the corporation had earlier proceeded under section 31 against the industrial concern.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>