<?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 (1) TMI 625 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112083</link>
    <description>A contractual condition in an industrial land allotment requiring the allottee to use the land for the specified industrial purpose and complete construction within the stipulated time was held valid and enforceable. Breach of those covenants permitted automatic cancellation of the allotment and resumption of possession, even though the full sale consideration had been paid. The court applied the principle that a time-bound condition linked to continued rights in the property is not hit by section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, and treated the resumption power as flowing from the express contractual terms. The plea of material alteration in the agreement failed because no contemporaneous objection had been raised.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Dec 2014 16:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149099" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 625 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112083</link>
      <description>A contractual condition in an industrial land allotment requiring the allottee to use the land for the specified industrial purpose and complete construction within the stipulated time was held valid and enforceable. Breach of those covenants permitted automatic cancellation of the allotment and resumption of possession, even though the full sale consideration had been paid. The court applied the principle that a time-bound condition linked to continued rights in the property is not hit by section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, and treated the resumption power as flowing from the express contractual terms. The plea of material alteration in the agreement failed because no contemporaneous objection had been raised.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112083</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>