<?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>1963 (12) TMI 40 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275660</link>
    <description>The Patiala Recovery of State Dues Act empowered the recovery authority to determine both the amount recoverable and the liability of the alleged defaulter, and section 11 barred ordinary civil court scrutiny on that question. However, the Provincial Insolvency Act gave the Insolvency Court power to decide all questions necessary for adjudication and to go behind a prior formal determination to test whether the debt was real and enforceable. Applying that principle, the Insolvency Court could examine the genuineness of the alleged surety liability despite the State Dues Act determination, and the respondent was found not liable on the surety bond.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:41:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537936" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (12) TMI 40 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275660</link>
      <description>The Patiala Recovery of State Dues Act empowered the recovery authority to determine both the amount recoverable and the liability of the alleged defaulter, and section 11 barred ordinary civil court scrutiny on that question. However, the Provincial Insolvency Act gave the Insolvency Court power to decide all questions necessary for adjudication and to go behind a prior formal determination to test whether the debt was real and enforceable. Applying that principle, the Insolvency Court could examine the genuineness of the alleged surety liability despite the State Dues Act determination, and the respondent was found not liable on the surety bond.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>