<?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>1981 (2) TMI 198 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100154</link>
    <description>A charge over immovable property may arise from the parties&#039; conduct and resolutions even if the written deed is unregistered and cannot itself operate to affect the property. The surrounding transaction, including prior authorisation and subsequent corporate filings, can establish that the charge was created independently of the inadmissible instrument, with the result that the creditor is treated as secured. A charge is not a transfer attracting fraudulent preference rules where it is supported by good faith and valuable consideration as part of an earlier arrangement, so the winding-up avoidance provisions do not apply. The claim was recognised as secured against the specified property.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:32:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (2) TMI 198 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100154</link>
      <description>A charge over immovable property may arise from the parties&#039; conduct and resolutions even if the written deed is unregistered and cannot itself operate to affect the property. The surrounding transaction, including prior authorisation and subsequent corporate filings, can establish that the charge was created independently of the inadmissible instrument, with the result that the creditor is treated as secured. A charge is not a transfer attracting fraudulent preference rules where it is supported by good faith and valuable consideration as part of an earlier arrangement, so the winding-up avoidance provisions do not apply. The claim was recognised as secured against the specified property.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>