<?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>2002 (4) TMI 878 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109685</link>
    <description>An owner of movable assets in a company liquidator&#039;s custody is entitled to return of those assets where ownership is admitted and no charge is shown over them; the D.G. sets were therefore ordered to be released, subject to an undertaking and bank guarantee against any future stamp duty or penalty liability. A claim for outstanding lease rentals could not be granted because the applicant could not prove lease termination or unpaid rentals without relying on the lease deeds, so the monetary claim had to be lodged as an unsecured claim before the liquidator. The lease deeds also appeared insufficiently stamped and were directed to be impounded for action under the Stamp Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:21:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146702" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 878 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109685</link>
      <description>An owner of movable assets in a company liquidator&#039;s custody is entitled to return of those assets where ownership is admitted and no charge is shown over them; the D.G. sets were therefore ordered to be released, subject to an undertaking and bank guarantee against any future stamp duty or penalty liability. A claim for outstanding lease rentals could not be granted because the applicant could not prove lease termination or unpaid rentals without relying on the lease deeds, so the monetary claim had to be lodged as an unsecured claim before the liquidator. The lease deeds also appeared insufficiently stamped and were directed to be impounded for action under the Stamp Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109685</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>