<?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>2020 (2) TMI 1702 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309526</link>
    <description>In a commercial summary suit, alleged breach of RBI directions and SFIO findings did not by themselves render the loan transaction unenforceable; the borrower&#039;s written acknowledgments of liability supported the claim and the objection did not justify unconditional leave to defend. The alleged delay in invoking pledged shares was treated as a potentially triable defence because the correspondence suggested a possible loss from not selling at the relevant time, but only as a factor for conditional leave. Insufficient stamp duty on the loan, guarantee and pledge documents also did not require unconditional leave, as the instruments could be impounded and stamp adjudication undertaken while the suit proceeded. Conditional leave was granted on deposit of admitted principal amounts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2023 20:45:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=725353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 1702 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309526</link>
      <description>In a commercial summary suit, alleged breach of RBI directions and SFIO findings did not by themselves render the loan transaction unenforceable; the borrower&#039;s written acknowledgments of liability supported the claim and the objection did not justify unconditional leave to defend. The alleged delay in invoking pledged shares was treated as a potentially triable defence because the correspondence suggested a possible loss from not selling at the relevant time, but only as a factor for conditional leave. Insufficient stamp duty on the loan, guarantee and pledge documents also did not require unconditional leave, as the instruments could be impounded and stamp adjudication undertaken while the suit proceeded. Conditional leave was granted on deposit of admitted principal amounts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309526</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>