<?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>2000 (3) TMI 1102 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279740</link>
    <description>The right of redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act is an inherent incident of a subsisting mortgage and cannot be defeated by contractual terms that prevent or unduly postpone redemption. A mortgage cannot be made irredeemable, and any stipulation that effectively takes away the mortgagor&#039;s right to redeem is void as a clog on the equity of redemption. Whether a term amounts to such a clog depends on the surrounding facts, including the parties&#039; circumstances and the overall effect of the bargain. On the facts stated, the 99-year mortgage term was treated as oppressive and redemption as illusory, so the suit for redemption was not premature.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2019 18:27:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565448" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 1102 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279740</link>
      <description>The right of redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act is an inherent incident of a subsisting mortgage and cannot be defeated by contractual terms that prevent or unduly postpone redemption. A mortgage cannot be made irredeemable, and any stipulation that effectively takes away the mortgagor&#039;s right to redeem is void as a clog on the equity of redemption. Whether a term amounts to such a clog depends on the surrounding facts, including the parties&#039; circumstances and the overall effect of the bargain. On the facts stated, the 99-year mortgage term was treated as oppressive and redemption as illusory, so the suit for redemption was not premature.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>