<?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>1957 (11) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300096</link>
    <description>Exclusive jurisdiction under the banking winding-up provisions extends to all claims and questions of law or fact arising in the course of winding up, and is not limited to monetary claims. On that construction, suits seeking pattas and determination of occupancy rights against a banking company in liquidation could be examined by the High Court because such issues were merely incidental to the winding-up process. The Court further held that there was no constitutional infirmity from legislative overlap, applying the principle of pith and substance. The second appeals therefore failed and the decrees below were upheld with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Nov 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2022 09:55:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=666896" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (11) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300096</link>
      <description>Exclusive jurisdiction under the banking winding-up provisions extends to all claims and questions of law or fact arising in the course of winding up, and is not limited to monetary claims. On that construction, suits seeking pattas and determination of occupancy rights against a banking company in liquidation could be examined by the High Court because such issues were merely incidental to the winding-up process. The Court further held that there was no constitutional infirmity from legislative overlap, applying the principle of pith and substance. The second appeals therefore failed and the decrees below were upheld with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Nov 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300096</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>