<?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>1992 (4) TMI 265 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314311</link>
    <description>A mortgagee&#039;s power-of-sale auction was found void where the sale proclamation omitted material particulars such as the property&#039;s estimated value, reserve price, tax burden and rental income, and the description of the structure was shown to be false. The purchaser&#039;s knowledge of the true position and the fact that the property fetched only a fraction of its real value supported a finding that the defects were not mere irregularities but fraud and collusion. The sale was therefore not binding on the mortgagor, and the mortgagor was not confined to a damages claim against the mortgagee. A decree declaring the sale void and restraining further steps was justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 May 2024 12:47:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=754932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (4) TMI 265 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314311</link>
      <description>A mortgagee&#039;s power-of-sale auction was found void where the sale proclamation omitted material particulars such as the property&#039;s estimated value, reserve price, tax burden and rental income, and the description of the structure was shown to be false. The purchaser&#039;s knowledge of the true position and the fact that the property fetched only a fraction of its real value supported a finding that the defects were not mere irregularities but fraud and collusion. The sale was therefore not binding on the mortgagor, and the mortgagor was not confined to a damages claim against the mortgagee. A decree declaring the sale void and restraining further steps was justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314311</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>