<?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>2004 (1) TMI 435 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110639</link>
    <description>In Chapter XIII-A summary proceedings, the Court must confine itself to the affidavits and material permitted by the rules and cannot enlarge the procedure by calling for third-party records or evidence. Leave to defend may be refused only where the defence is sham or illusory; where a defendant discloses a bona fide defence or triable issue, leave must be granted. On the materials, the defendant raised arguable issues concerning the Reserve Bank of India&#039;s refusal of permission, the bank&#039;s resulting conduct, and the purpose and lien over the deposit, all of which required trial. The refusal of leave was therefore set aside and the suit was directed to proceed in the ordinary course.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:33:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147655" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 435 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110639</link>
      <description>In Chapter XIII-A summary proceedings, the Court must confine itself to the affidavits and material permitted by the rules and cannot enlarge the procedure by calling for third-party records or evidence. Leave to defend may be refused only where the defence is sham or illusory; where a defendant discloses a bona fide defence or triable issue, leave must be granted. On the materials, the defendant raised arguable issues concerning the Reserve Bank of India&#039;s refusal of permission, the bank&#039;s resulting conduct, and the purpose and lien over the deposit, all of which required trial. The refusal of leave was therefore set aside and the suit was directed to proceed in the ordinary course.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110639</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>