<?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 (11) TMI 1526 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351647</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the reassessment by the Official Liquidator and the order of the Learned Single Judge. The appellant&#039;s claim for compound interest under the 1990 Mortgage Deed was rejected, as the court found the terms of the 1990 Deed did not support such entitlement. The court extended the time for depositing the directed amount by four weeks and disposed of the related Notice of Motion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2017 07:32:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497992" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1526 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351647</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the reassessment by the Official Liquidator and the order of the Learned Single Judge. The appellant&#039;s claim for compound interest under the 1990 Mortgage Deed was rejected, as the court found the terms of the 1990 Deed did not support such entitlement. The court extended the time for depositing the directed amount by four weeks and disposed of the related Notice of Motion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>