<?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>2017 (2) TMI 464 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338764</link>
    <description>The High Court partially allowed the writ petition, directing the Bank to refund the Earnest Money Deposit to the petitioner. The Court dismissed the plea for an extension of time for payment and upheld the Bank&#039;s decision to cancel the sale. Additionally, the Court ruled in favor of the Bank regarding the disclosure of encumbrances in the sale notice, emphasizing the importance of independent inquiries by bidders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:38:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458264" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 464 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338764</link>
      <description>The High Court partially allowed the writ petition, directing the Bank to refund the Earnest Money Deposit to the petitioner. The Court dismissed the plea for an extension of time for payment and upheld the Bank&#039;s decision to cancel the sale. Additionally, the Court ruled in favor of the Bank regarding the disclosure of encumbrances in the sale notice, emphasizing the importance of independent inquiries by bidders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>