<?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>1950 (10) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286980</link>
    <description>The Oudh Laws Act is construed to require the word &quot;and&quot; in Section 13(d) and the concluding paragraph of Section 13 to be read conjunctively. Read with Sections 10, 11 and 12, the scheme ties the amount payable in foreclosure cases to the real mortgage consideration, not merely the market value of the property. The court&#039;s approach is that &quot;and&quot; should depart from its ordinary meaning only where context produces absurdity, anomaly, or defeats legislative intention. On that interpretation, all stated conditions must be proved before the amount payable can be reduced; reading the provision disjunctively was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2020 16:54:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=607857" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1950 (10) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286980</link>
      <description>The Oudh Laws Act is construed to require the word &quot;and&quot; in Section 13(d) and the concluding paragraph of Section 13 to be read conjunctively. Read with Sections 10, 11 and 12, the scheme ties the amount payable in foreclosure cases to the real mortgage consideration, not merely the market value of the property. The court&#039;s approach is that &quot;and&quot; should depart from its ordinary meaning only where context produces absurdity, anomaly, or defeats legislative intention. On that interpretation, all stated conditions must be proved before the amount payable can be reduced; reading the provision disjunctively was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286980</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>