<?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>1993 (7) TMI 302 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103471</link>
    <description>An irrevocable power of attorney and allied loan documents did not, by themselves, create an equitable assignment of rents receivable from a tenant. The equitable mortgage gave the bank only the rights of a simple mortgagee and no independent right to the property&#039;s rents or income. Because the loan documents did not earmark the rents for repayment of the debt, the power of attorney operated only as an agency authorising receipt of rent on the company&#039;s behalf. The label &quot;irrevocable&quot; was insufficient to create a power coupled with interest, and an instrument creating rights in rents from immovable property would in any event require registration. The bank was therefore not entitled to receive the rents to the exclusion of the company.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:29:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140510" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (7) TMI 302 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103471</link>
      <description>An irrevocable power of attorney and allied loan documents did not, by themselves, create an equitable assignment of rents receivable from a tenant. The equitable mortgage gave the bank only the rights of a simple mortgagee and no independent right to the property&#039;s rents or income. Because the loan documents did not earmark the rents for repayment of the debt, the power of attorney operated only as an agency authorising receipt of rent on the company&#039;s behalf. The label &quot;irrevocable&quot; was insufficient to create a power coupled with interest, and an instrument creating rights in rents from immovable property would in any event require registration. The bank was therefore not entitled to receive the rents to the exclusion of the company.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>