<?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>2006 (6) TMI 225 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112373</link>
    <description>A purchaser who accepted tender terms requiring payment of pre-sale municipal tax and water and sewerage arrears remained bound by that undertaking after the sale was confirmed. The recital in the sale deed that the property was sold free from encumbrances did not override the express contractual terms accepted in the tender. Section 55(1)(g) of the Transfer of Property Act did not assist the purchaser because the contract was to the contrary, and section 69 of the Contract Act was inapplicable on the facts. The arrears were treated as charges attached to the property, so the purchaser was liable and the request to shift the burden to the company in liquidation was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 17 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:14:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 225 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112373</link>
      <description>A purchaser who accepted tender terms requiring payment of pre-sale municipal tax and water and sewerage arrears remained bound by that undertaking after the sale was confirmed. The recital in the sale deed that the property was sold free from encumbrances did not override the express contractual terms accepted in the tender. Section 55(1)(g) of the Transfer of Property Act did not assist the purchaser because the contract was to the contrary, and section 69 of the Contract Act was inapplicable on the facts. The arrears were treated as charges attached to the property, so the purchaser was liable and the request to shift the burden to the company in liquidation was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>