<?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 (12) TMI 461 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335816</link>
    <description>At the SARFAESI demand-notice stage, a secured creditor may issue notice under section 13(2) only within the limited authority of the Act and Rules, and newspaper publication does not extend to publishing a borrower&#039;s or guarantor&#039;s photograph unless the narrow conditions for substituted service are met and the record shows the requisite reason to believe that service was being evaded. The article also notes that publication of the second petitioner&#039;s photograph was unauthorised where there was no such contemporaneous basis and the bank&#039;s own circular prohibited it. Corrective relief and costs were considered appropriate, while compensation was declined for want of proper pleading of specific harm.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Dec 2016 08:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 461 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335816</link>
      <description>At the SARFAESI demand-notice stage, a secured creditor may issue notice under section 13(2) only within the limited authority of the Act and Rules, and newspaper publication does not extend to publishing a borrower&#039;s or guarantor&#039;s photograph unless the narrow conditions for substituted service are met and the record shows the requisite reason to believe that service was being evaded. The article also notes that publication of the second petitioner&#039;s photograph was unauthorised where there was no such contemporaneous basis and the bank&#039;s own circular prohibited it. Corrective relief and costs were considered appropriate, while compensation was declined for want of proper pleading of specific harm.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335816</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>