<?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 (5) TMI 750 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458389</link>
    <description>MP HC quashed District Magistrate&#039;s order under SARFAESI Act, 2002 regarding agricultural land. Court held the order was void ab initio as Section 31(i) of SARFAESI Act explicitly excludes agricultural land from its provisions. Though petitioners had remedy to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal, forcing them to appeal a void order was unjustified. Bank remains free to pursue other legal remedies for debt recovery. Writ petition allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2024 19:42:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=775524" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (5) TMI 750 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458389</link>
      <description>MP HC quashed District Magistrate&#039;s order under SARFAESI Act, 2002 regarding agricultural land. Court held the order was void ab initio as Section 31(i) of SARFAESI Act explicitly excludes agricultural land from its provisions. Though petitioners had remedy to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal, forcing them to appeal a void order was unjustified. Bank remains free to pursue other legal remedies for debt recovery. Writ petition allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458389</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>