<?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>2009 (12) TMI 528 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113604</link>
    <description>Section 13 of the Act permits a secured creditor to recover only costs, charges and expenses that have been properly incurred, applying a prudent and reasonable standard. Where the borrower substantially satisfies the liability demanded in the section 13(2) notice, the creditor cannot continue coercive measures under section 13(4) without first verifying any remaining dues and, if required, issuing a fresh notice. In this matter, routine debits for inspection, notices and publication were treated as recoverable, but the additional demand for enforcement or recovery agent fees was found excessive, unreasonable and disproportionate, and therefore not recoverable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150610" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 528 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113604</link>
      <description>Section 13 of the Act permits a secured creditor to recover only costs, charges and expenses that have been properly incurred, applying a prudent and reasonable standard. Where the borrower substantially satisfies the liability demanded in the section 13(2) notice, the creditor cannot continue coercive measures under section 13(4) without first verifying any remaining dues and, if required, issuing a fresh notice. In this matter, routine debits for inspection, notices and publication were treated as recoverable, but the additional demand for enforcement or recovery agent fees was found excessive, unreasonable and disproportionate, and therefore not recoverable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113604</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>