<?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>1987 (6) TMI 371 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101721</link>
    <description>The Kerala Land Assignment Rules did not govern a special lease agreement because Rule 1A excludes Government lands held under special agreements, so the non-alienation restriction in Rule 15(2) did not apply. A proposed sale by an official liquidator in winding up was not treated as outside a contractual covenant against assignment or parting with possession without the Collector&#039;s written permission; court supervision did not make the transfer immune from that restriction. Because the sale had not yet been completed and prior sanction had not been sought or decided, the challenge was premature, and the liquidator was left to obtain Collector&#039;s sanction before any further court challenge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:53:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138770" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (6) TMI 371 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101721</link>
      <description>The Kerala Land Assignment Rules did not govern a special lease agreement because Rule 1A excludes Government lands held under special agreements, so the non-alienation restriction in Rule 15(2) did not apply. A proposed sale by an official liquidator in winding up was not treated as outside a contractual covenant against assignment or parting with possession without the Collector&#039;s written permission; court supervision did not make the transfer immune from that restriction. Because the sale had not yet been completed and prior sanction had not been sought or decided, the challenge was premature, and the liquidator was left to obtain Collector&#039;s sanction before any further court challenge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101721</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>