<?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>1988 (7) TMI 228 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73882</link>
    <description>A statutory distress sale of a vessel by a Port Trust to recover unpaid dues was held not to be invalidated by administrative ship-breaker registration conditions, because the auction was a simpliciter sale and not confined to scrapping. The transfer prohibition under the Merchant Shipping Act was also held inapplicable, as it governs voluntary owner-initiated transfers and not a sale made under statutory recovery powers. Allegations that confirmation of sale was mala fide or that the price was grossly inadequate were rejected for want of supporting material, especially where the vessel had been independently valued and the auction price was not shown to be unconscionable. The auction sale was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112161" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (7) TMI 228 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73882</link>
      <description>A statutory distress sale of a vessel by a Port Trust to recover unpaid dues was held not to be invalidated by administrative ship-breaker registration conditions, because the auction was a simpliciter sale and not confined to scrapping. The transfer prohibition under the Merchant Shipping Act was also held inapplicable, as it governs voluntary owner-initiated transfers and not a sale made under statutory recovery powers. Allegations that confirmation of sale was mala fide or that the price was grossly inadequate were rejected for want of supporting material, especially where the vessel had been independently valued and the auction price was not shown to be unconscionable. The auction sale was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73882</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>