<?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>2009 (5) TMI 978 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197396</link>
    <description>A public sector bank&#039;s assignment of a borrower&#039;s debt and security during pending recovery proceedings and an ongoing settlement proposal is analysed as subject to writ scrutiny where public funds and fairness are implicated. The document notes that the transfer was questioned for lack of lawful basis under the SARFAESI framework, improper stamping, and misrepresentation in presenting the transaction as SARFAESI-based. It further states that a guarantor&#039;s liability could not be prejudiced by a unilateral transfer made while the settlement process was unresolved, and that a deposited one-time settlement amount was to be accepted and adjusted with release of the secured charge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2018 14:36:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503272" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 978 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197396</link>
      <description>A public sector bank&#039;s assignment of a borrower&#039;s debt and security during pending recovery proceedings and an ongoing settlement proposal is analysed as subject to writ scrutiny where public funds and fairness are implicated. The document notes that the transfer was questioned for lack of lawful basis under the SARFAESI framework, improper stamping, and misrepresentation in presenting the transaction as SARFAESI-based. It further states that a guarantor&#039;s liability could not be prejudiced by a unilateral transfer made while the settlement process was unresolved, and that a deposited one-time settlement amount was to be accepted and adjusted with release of the secured charge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197396</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>