<?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>2013 (8) TMI 1063 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196267</link>
    <description>A secured creditor may confine arbitration to a personal money claim without seeking sale of the mortgaged property, and that approach does not convert the claim into an action in rem or forfeit the mortgage security. The creditor may still preserve the security separately under Order XXXIV Rule 14 CPC and invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interim protection to secure the amount in dispute. In granting such relief, the court may apply CPC principles, including those reflected in Order XXXVIII Rule 5, and may direct security or attachment where disclosure is incomplete and there is a risk of asset dissipation. The protective orders were upheld as justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2017 17:33:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 1063 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196267</link>
      <description>A secured creditor may confine arbitration to a personal money claim without seeking sale of the mortgaged property, and that approach does not convert the claim into an action in rem or forfeit the mortgage security. The creditor may still preserve the security separately under Order XXXIV Rule 14 CPC and invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interim protection to secure the amount in dispute. In granting such relief, the court may apply CPC principles, including those reflected in Order XXXVIII Rule 5, and may direct security or attachment where disclosure is incomplete and there is a risk of asset dissipation. The protective orders were upheld as justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>