<?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 (3) TMI 444 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110654</link>
    <description>A suit for partition and separate possession of joint family properties is not barred by section 34 of the SARFAESI Act where the plaintiffs are not parties to the secured debt and the dispute concerns title and shares, which the statutory tribunal is not empowered to determine. Section 35 gives the Act overriding effect, but it does not exclude civil court jurisdiction from adjudicating partition rights. A secured creditor cannot proceed against the whole property while the plaintiffs&#039; undivided shares remain to be decided by the civil court, and refusal of injunction on the assumption of a statutory bar is erroneous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147670" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 444 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110654</link>
      <description>A suit for partition and separate possession of joint family properties is not barred by section 34 of the SARFAESI Act where the plaintiffs are not parties to the secured debt and the dispute concerns title and shares, which the statutory tribunal is not empowered to determine. Section 35 gives the Act overriding effect, but it does not exclude civil court jurisdiction from adjudicating partition rights. A secured creditor cannot proceed against the whole property while the plaintiffs&#039; undivided shares remain to be decided by the civil court, and refusal of injunction on the assumption of a statutory bar is erroneous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110654</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>