<?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>2008 (3) TMI 478 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111758</link>
    <description>A duly registered mortgage and a registered company charge bind subsequent purchasers, because registration gives statutory notice and prevents a later transferee from acquiring title superior to the mortgagor&#039;s interest. On the facts, the applicants could not rely on lack of actual notice to defeat the plaintiff&#039;s prior security interest, and the transfer to them conveyed no more than the equity of redemption. The pendency of the suit did not dilute the plaintiff&#039;s registered rights, so the challenge to the receiver&#039;s possession and proposed sale could not prevail. The chamber summons was therefore not maintainable on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2014 12:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148774" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 478 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111758</link>
      <description>A duly registered mortgage and a registered company charge bind subsequent purchasers, because registration gives statutory notice and prevents a later transferee from acquiring title superior to the mortgagor&#039;s interest. On the facts, the applicants could not rely on lack of actual notice to defeat the plaintiff&#039;s prior security interest, and the transfer to them conveyed no more than the equity of redemption. The pendency of the suit did not dilute the plaintiff&#039;s registered rights, so the challenge to the receiver&#039;s possession and proposed sale could not prevail. The chamber summons was therefore not maintainable on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111758</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>