<?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>2021 (2) TMI 1361 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309944</link>
    <description>Service of a secured creditor&#039;s sale notice sent by registered post to the borrower&#039;s correct address is presumed unless rebutted, and postal endorsements such as unclaimed, intimation served, or door locked may support compliance with the notice regime under the SARFAESI Rules and Section 13(8). The material also states that a writ petitioner who suppresses earlier securitisation proceedings and related challenges acts without clean hands, and such concealment can justify dismissal in the court&#039;s discretionary writ jurisdiction without examining the merits. The result described is that the recovery measures were upheld and the writ petition was rejected with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2023 21:13:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=727411" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 1361 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309944</link>
      <description>Service of a secured creditor&#039;s sale notice sent by registered post to the borrower&#039;s correct address is presumed unless rebutted, and postal endorsements such as unclaimed, intimation served, or door locked may support compliance with the notice regime under the SARFAESI Rules and Section 13(8). The material also states that a writ petitioner who suppresses earlier securitisation proceedings and related challenges acts without clean hands, and such concealment can justify dismissal in the court&#039;s discretionary writ jurisdiction without examining the merits. The result described is that the recovery measures were upheld and the writ petition was rejected with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309944</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>