<?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>2019 (11) TMI 167 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387918</link>
    <description>Expiry of the liquidation period under Section 109 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 does not automatically extinguish members&#039; liability for loans already obtained or bar pending recovery proceedings. The statutory scheme for winding up, liquidation, final report and disposal of surplus does not create an automatic prohibition on continuation of such actions after the liquidation period ends. The Court also applied the principle that a party should not gain an advantage from an interim stay or litigation delay, and that restitution requires neutralising any unfair benefit. The creditor bank was therefore entitled to continue the pending recovery proceedings, and the High Court&#039;s contrary view was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2019 10:29:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=592941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 167 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387918</link>
      <description>Expiry of the liquidation period under Section 109 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 does not automatically extinguish members&#039; liability for loans already obtained or bar pending recovery proceedings. The statutory scheme for winding up, liquidation, final report and disposal of surplus does not create an automatic prohibition on continuation of such actions after the liquidation period ends. The Court also applied the principle that a party should not gain an advantage from an interim stay or litigation delay, and that restitution requires neutralising any unfair benefit. The creditor bank was therefore entitled to continue the pending recovery proceedings, and the High Court&#039;s contrary view was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>