<?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>2003 (3) TMI 530 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108487</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, noting that the impugned directions on custody of the property and lease arrangements were founded on consent. The petitioner&#039;s interest was safeguarded by segregation of the lease proceeds, and the petitioner&#039;s title was expressly left open to be pursued in separate proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 530 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108487</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, noting that the impugned directions on custody of the property and lease arrangements were founded on consent. The petitioner&#039;s interest was safeguarded by segregation of the lease proceeds, and the petitioner&#039;s title was expressly left open to be pursued in separate proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108487</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>