<?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>1968 (4) TMI 95 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297983</link>
    <description>A power of attorney created for valuable consideration to secure a bank&#039;s interest in decretal proceeds was held irrevocable under Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, as it was coupled with an interest. Although the instrument was not a legal assignment in form, it earmarked the decretal amount as a fund for discharge of the bank&#039;s debt and therefore operated in equity as an assignment to that extent. The bank could also execute the decree in its own right under Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even though Order XXI, Rule 16 was unavailable and the decree stood in the appellant&#039;s name. The execution was allowed to continue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2021 18:32:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=657616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (4) TMI 95 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297983</link>
      <description>A power of attorney created for valuable consideration to secure a bank&#039;s interest in decretal proceeds was held irrevocable under Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, as it was coupled with an interest. Although the instrument was not a legal assignment in form, it earmarked the decretal amount as a fund for discharge of the bank&#039;s debt and therefore operated in equity as an assignment to that extent. The bank could also execute the decree in its own right under Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even though Order XXI, Rule 16 was unavailable and the decree stood in the appellant&#039;s name. The execution was allowed to continue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297983</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>