<?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>2005 (10) TMI 291 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112423</link>
    <description>Sale proceeds from secured property were treated on an equitable basis, with the Court balancing the secured creditor&#039;s interest, the administrator&#039;s claim, and the appellants&#039; entitlement after a later auction fetched a higher price. The analysis noted the long course of proceedings, the bank&#039;s conduct in other settlements, the agricultural purpose of the original borrowing, and the discretionary nature of pendente lite and future interest under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On that footing, the proceeds were apportioned between the bank, the administrator and the appellants, and the payment was directed to operate as full and final settlement of the bank&#039;s claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:43:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149439" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 291 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112423</link>
      <description>Sale proceeds from secured property were treated on an equitable basis, with the Court balancing the secured creditor&#039;s interest, the administrator&#039;s claim, and the appellants&#039; entitlement after a later auction fetched a higher price. The analysis noted the long course of proceedings, the bank&#039;s conduct in other settlements, the agricultural purpose of the original borrowing, and the discretionary nature of pendente lite and future interest under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On that footing, the proceeds were apportioned between the bank, the administrator and the appellants, and the payment was directed to operate as full and final settlement of the bank&#039;s claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112423</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>