<?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 (2) TMI 400 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109784</link>
    <description>Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 permits a financial corporation to take over and sell an industrial concern on default, and judicial review in recovery matters is confined to statutory violation, unfairness, or breach of natural justice. On the facts, the corporation had issued a recall-cum-sale notice, given prior intimation, publicised the sale, and completed the process transparently; the challenge came too late and did not dislodge the record of notice and publicity. The earlier guidelines in Mahesh Chandra were treated as overruled by Jagadamba Oil Mills, and that overruling was applied to pending matters rather than confined prospectively. The seizure and sale were therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:09:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146801" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 400 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109784</link>
      <description>Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 permits a financial corporation to take over and sell an industrial concern on default, and judicial review in recovery matters is confined to statutory violation, unfairness, or breach of natural justice. On the facts, the corporation had issued a recall-cum-sale notice, given prior intimation, publicised the sale, and completed the process transparently; the challenge came too late and did not dislodge the record of notice and publicity. The earlier guidelines in Mahesh Chandra were treated as overruled by Jagadamba Oil Mills, and that overruling was applied to pending matters rather than confined prospectively. The seizure and sale were therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109784</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>