<?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>1947 (9) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198710</link>
    <description>An award fixing equal, unconditional liability on both a principal debtor and a surety preserved the surety&#039;s liability even after the principal debtor&#039;s debt was later discharged by operation of the Debt Conciliation Act, because the liability had already merged in the award and Section 134 of the Indian Contract Act did not apply. The court also held that a civil suit challenging the sale officer&#039;s order in execution was maintainable, since the applicable co-operative society procedure expressly contemplated such a challenge and the jurisdiction objection failed. The appeal succeeded, the lower appellate decree was set aside, and the trial court decree in favour of the bank was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 1947 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2018 16:59:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=507982" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1947 (9) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198710</link>
      <description>An award fixing equal, unconditional liability on both a principal debtor and a surety preserved the surety&#039;s liability even after the principal debtor&#039;s debt was later discharged by operation of the Debt Conciliation Act, because the liability had already merged in the award and Section 134 of the Indian Contract Act did not apply. The court also held that a civil suit challenging the sale officer&#039;s order in execution was maintainable, since the applicable co-operative society procedure expressly contemplated such a challenge and the jurisdiction objection failed. The appeal succeeded, the lower appellate decree was set aside, and the trial court decree in favour of the bank was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 1947 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>