<?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>1987 (4) TMI 492 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278127</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the decision that the Bank must exhaust remedies against the mortgaged property before proceeding against the guarantor. The Court found that since a portion of the decreed amount was covered by the mortgage, the Bank needed to first proceed against the mortgaged property before executing against the guarantor. The matter was remanded to the High Court for further proceedings based on the Bank&#039;s actions against the mortgaged property and principal debtor.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2019 14:18:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=552522" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (4) TMI 492 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278127</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the decision that the Bank must exhaust remedies against the mortgaged property before proceeding against the guarantor. The Court found that since a portion of the decreed amount was covered by the mortgage, the Bank needed to first proceed against the mortgaged property before executing against the guarantor. The matter was remanded to the High Court for further proceedings based on the Bank&#039;s actions against the mortgaged property and principal debtor.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278127</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>