<?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>1989 (8) TMI 272 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101797</link>
    <description>Wrongful withholding of company-provided premises by a former employee falls within the summary remedy for recovery of company property where the company was the licensee and no bona fide tenancy dispute exists. Concurrent findings established that the former employee occupied the flat under the company&#039;s leave-and-licence arrangement and relied on letters that did not create a genuine dispute requiring exclusion of criminal proceedings. The company&#039;s agent was authorised to lodge the complaint through a power of attorney, agency status and managerial position. The High Court&#039;s setting aside of the convictions was erroneous; the trial and appellate court judgments were restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138846" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (8) TMI 272 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101797</link>
      <description>Wrongful withholding of company-provided premises by a former employee falls within the summary remedy for recovery of company property where the company was the licensee and no bona fide tenancy dispute exists. Concurrent findings established that the former employee occupied the flat under the company&#039;s leave-and-licence arrangement and relied on letters that did not create a genuine dispute requiring exclusion of criminal proceedings. The company&#039;s agent was authorised to lodge the complaint through a power of attorney, agency status and managerial position. The High Court&#039;s setting aside of the convictions was erroneous; the trial and appellate court judgments were restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101797</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>