<?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>2016 (5) TMI 385 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327404</link>
    <description>A security interest qualifies for the SARFAESI agricultural-land exemption under section 31 only where the mortgage deed specifically creates the charge over agricultural land; revenue records alone do not change the nature of the secured asset described in the mortgage. On the possession issue, section 14 was treated as empowering the Magistrate to deliver the secured asset to the creditor through a Commissioner, and a disputed claim that the house property lay outside the scheduled property could not be resolved in writ proceedings on the bare record. The exemption was therefore unavailable, and the possession challenge was not established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 May 2016 11:33:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=427616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 385 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327404</link>
      <description>A security interest qualifies for the SARFAESI agricultural-land exemption under section 31 only where the mortgage deed specifically creates the charge over agricultural land; revenue records alone do not change the nature of the secured asset described in the mortgage. On the possession issue, section 14 was treated as empowering the Magistrate to deliver the secured asset to the creditor through a Commissioner, and a disputed claim that the house property lay outside the scheduled property could not be resolved in writ proceedings on the bare record. The exemption was therefore unavailable, and the possession challenge was not established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327404</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>