<?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>2016 (9) TMI 1612 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298873</link>
    <description>Pending execution proceedings were saved by the repealing-and-saving clause and continued under the earlier statutory regime, because &quot;legal proceeding&quot; was read in a wide sense and the new arbitration and execution scheme did not displace proceedings already pending. Challenge to the sale on alleged irregularity had to be pursued through the specific statutory remedy for setting aside the sale within the prescribed time and on proof of substantial injury; vague allegations of mala fides were insufficient. Remand was therefore refused, the auction sale was upheld, and the judgment under challenge was set aside with directions to refund the excess amount with interest to the borrower.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2021 07:55:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=661940" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 1612 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298873</link>
      <description>Pending execution proceedings were saved by the repealing-and-saving clause and continued under the earlier statutory regime, because &quot;legal proceeding&quot; was read in a wide sense and the new arbitration and execution scheme did not displace proceedings already pending. Challenge to the sale on alleged irregularity had to be pursued through the specific statutory remedy for setting aside the sale within the prescribed time and on proof of substantial injury; vague allegations of mala fides were insufficient. Remand was therefore refused, the auction sale was upheld, and the judgment under challenge was set aside with directions to refund the excess amount with interest to the borrower.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>