<?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>2025 (3) TMI 557 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767171</link>
    <description>A civil court can entertain a suit seeking declaration of title and challenge to the authenticity of loan-related documents where no measure under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act has yet been taken, because the DRT bar under Section 34 extends only to matters the Tribunal is empowered to determine. Refusal of ad interim injunction is unsustainable if the order gives no reasons or ignores relevant materials, since interim relief orders must disclose reasons. On the facts discussed, the claimant&#039;s disputed status as borrower or guarantor, undisputed share in the property, and risk of coercive action supported a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, justifying ad interim injunction and preservation of status quo.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2025 09:06:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=805885" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 557 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767171</link>
      <description>A civil court can entertain a suit seeking declaration of title and challenge to the authenticity of loan-related documents where no measure under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act has yet been taken, because the DRT bar under Section 34 extends only to matters the Tribunal is empowered to determine. Refusal of ad interim injunction is unsustainable if the order gives no reasons or ignores relevant materials, since interim relief orders must disclose reasons. On the facts discussed, the claimant&#039;s disputed status as borrower or guarantor, undisputed share in the property, and risk of coercive action supported a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, justifying ad interim injunction and preservation of status quo.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767171</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>