<?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>2012 (4) TMI 142 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211818</link>
    <description>A bank cannot treat a tenant&#039;s movables as secured assets under the SARFAESI Act when those goods were never offered as security and the tenant is neither borrower nor guarantor. Possession taken through section 14 does not expand the bank&#039;s statutory power to sell third-party goods, and a section 13(2) notice issued only to the borrower does not authorise action against the tenant&#039;s property. Costs, charges and expenses under section 13(7) are recoverable from the borrower in relation to secured assets, not from a stranger to the loan transaction. The bank therefore had no legal basis to retain the goods or demand reimbursement from the tenant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 10:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185235" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 142 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211818</link>
      <description>A bank cannot treat a tenant&#039;s movables as secured assets under the SARFAESI Act when those goods were never offered as security and the tenant is neither borrower nor guarantor. Possession taken through section 14 does not expand the bank&#039;s statutory power to sell third-party goods, and a section 13(2) notice issued only to the borrower does not authorise action against the tenant&#039;s property. Costs, charges and expenses under section 13(7) are recoverable from the borrower in relation to secured assets, not from a stranger to the loan transaction. The bank therefore had no legal basis to retain the goods or demand reimbursement from the tenant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211818</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>