<?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>1999 (9) TMI 971 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196388</link>
    <description>In a pledge arrangement, section 176 of the Indian Contract Act gives the pawnee concurrent remedies on default: to sue for the debt while retaining the pledged property, or to sell it after reasonable notice. Clause 6 was treated as a waiver of notice before appropriation, not a mandate to realise the fixed deposits month by month, so the Bank was not bound to adjust each instalment as it fell due. For section 34 CPC, the principal sum adjudged could include contractual interest where the contract so provided and such interest had merged into the amount payable. The award of future interest at 6% per annum was also upheld as not shown to be erroneous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:47:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498053" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 971 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196388</link>
      <description>In a pledge arrangement, section 176 of the Indian Contract Act gives the pawnee concurrent remedies on default: to sue for the debt while retaining the pledged property, or to sell it after reasonable notice. Clause 6 was treated as a waiver of notice before appropriation, not a mandate to realise the fixed deposits month by month, so the Bank was not bound to adjust each instalment as it fell due. For section 34 CPC, the principal sum adjudged could include contractual interest where the contract so provided and such interest had merged into the amount payable. The award of future interest at 6% per annum was also upheld as not shown to be erroneous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196388</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>