<?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>2018 (10) TMI 1009 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369043</link>
    <description>A partner cannot resist recovery of a partnership firm&#039;s secured debt by claiming liability only for a proportionate share, because a firm&#039;s borrowing remains a joint and several liability of all partners under the Partnership Act. The secured creditor may recover the outstanding dues from any partner, and internal disputes between partners over contribution do not limit that right. Where the security was created for the firm&#039;s liability and the partner&#039;s earlier undertakings to deposit amounts were not honoured, release of only part of the mortgaged property was inconsistent with the legal position. The challenge to action under the SARFAESI framework therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538833" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 1009 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369043</link>
      <description>A partner cannot resist recovery of a partnership firm&#039;s secured debt by claiming liability only for a proportionate share, because a firm&#039;s borrowing remains a joint and several liability of all partners under the Partnership Act. The secured creditor may recover the outstanding dues from any partner, and internal disputes between partners over contribution do not limit that right. Where the security was created for the firm&#039;s liability and the partner&#039;s earlier undertakings to deposit amounts were not honoured, release of only part of the mortgaged property was inconsistent with the legal position. The challenge to action under the SARFAESI framework therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369043</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>