<?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>1958 (5) TMI 35 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97589</link>
    <description>A debenture that purports to create a charge over immovable property requires registration under the Indian Registration Act; registration of the charge with the Registrar of Companies is not an adequate substitute because the companies filing provisions contemplate only general particulars and do not sufficiently identify the property. On the evidence, the plant and machinery were embedded or permanently fastened for the permanent working of the oil mill, so they formed part of the immovable property despite being physically detachable. The result was that the third series of debentures did not validly charge the immovable property, and the debenture holders were treated as unsecured creditors.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:15:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (5) TMI 35 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97589</link>
      <description>A debenture that purports to create a charge over immovable property requires registration under the Indian Registration Act; registration of the charge with the Registrar of Companies is not an adequate substitute because the companies filing provisions contemplate only general particulars and do not sufficiently identify the property. On the evidence, the plant and machinery were embedded or permanently fastened for the permanent working of the oil mill, so they formed part of the immovable property despite being physically detachable. The result was that the third series of debentures did not validly charge the immovable property, and the debenture holders were treated as unsecured creditors.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>