<?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>1996 (5) TMI 355 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103308</link>
    <description>The Delhi HC held that a decree for a company&#039;s pre-appointed day liability under a special nationalisation statute could not be enforced against the Union of India. The statute preserved liabilities arising before the appointed day as the company&#039;s liabilities alone, except for expressly carved-out obligations, and barred enforcement of any award, decree or order relating to those liabilities against the Central Government. Its non obstante clause gave this scheme overriding effect over inconsistent instruments and prior government management arrangements. The objection to execution against the Union therefore failed, and the liability remained recoverable only from the company.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:43:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140347" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 355 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103308</link>
      <description>The Delhi HC held that a decree for a company&#039;s pre-appointed day liability under a special nationalisation statute could not be enforced against the Union of India. The statute preserved liabilities arising before the appointed day as the company&#039;s liabilities alone, except for expressly carved-out obligations, and barred enforcement of any award, decree or order relating to those liabilities against the Central Government. Its non obstante clause gave this scheme overriding effect over inconsistent instruments and prior government management arrangements. The objection to execution against the Union therefore failed, and the liability remained recoverable only from the company.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103308</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>