<?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>1960 (4) TMI 86 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199767</link>
    <description>Under a beneficial debt-relief statute, &quot;debt payable at the commencement of the Act&quot; was construed to mean a debt owing or outstanding on that date, even if not yet immediately enforceable in court. The Act&#039;s object required relief to extend to pre-commencement debts classified by the date incurred, rather than only to debts already due and actionable. A deposit or other sum payable on demand was also treated as a debt within the Act, because the absence of a pre-commencement demand postpones enforcement but does not extinguish the liability. The earlier narrow view was rejected, and the debt was brought within the Act&#039;s relief scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2022 15:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (4) TMI 86 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199767</link>
      <description>Under a beneficial debt-relief statute, &quot;debt payable at the commencement of the Act&quot; was construed to mean a debt owing or outstanding on that date, even if not yet immediately enforceable in court. The Act&#039;s object required relief to extend to pre-commencement debts classified by the date incurred, rather than only to debts already due and actionable. A deposit or other sum payable on demand was also treated as a debt within the Act, because the absence of a pre-commencement demand postpones enforcement but does not extinguish the liability. The earlier narrow view was rejected, and the debt was brought within the Act&#039;s relief scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199767</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>